This study aims to analyze the influence of Product
Differentiation, Price Perception, and Brand Image on Wall's Ice Cream
Purchasing Decisions at Lotte Mart South Jakarta City in 2020. This research
data used primary data in the form of questionnaires to 100 consumers of Wall's
ice cream at Lotte Mart South Jakarta City. Data analysis techniques using
multiple linear regression analysis and using the SPSS program. The results
showed an influence between Product Differentiation, on Purchasing Decisions by
0.205 and had an influence of 25.0%. Similarly, the Price Perception variable
on Purchasing Decisions is 0.241 and has an influence of 24.1%. Then for the
Brand Image variable on Purchase Decisions 0.266 and has an influence of 26.6%.
Partially or simutan has a strong influence among the three variables, the most
significant of which is the Brand Image variable of 0.266. The results of this
study hope that Wall's Ice cream can stabilize the Brand Image that occurs at
Lotte Mart in South Jakarta to support Purchasing Decisions.
Keywords: Product differentiation, price
perception, brand image, purchasing decision.
INTRODUCTION
In the era of globalization like today,
companies are required to be able to create a product that is able to compete
with other products if they want to survive in the flow of business
competition. The number of new competitors that emerge with new marketing
strategies will also make competition tighter and hotter. A company can be a
winner in its business competition if the company is able to capture as many
customers as possible. And of course the company can get a big profit as well.
One of the many that people consume is ice
cream. The market potential is quite good and will continue to grow because
people's desires increase in line with the increasing standard of living and
also the influence of the climate that often occurs in Indonesia, namely hot weather.
At first, the ice cream consumed by humans was
only in the form of ice milk, but along with the times, the milk underwent
updates tailored to market tastes. Starting from types, tastes, functions to
various branding. So that in general, ice cream product processing companies
create products with brands that have differentiation with other companies as a
force in competition to seize the market. So that in consuming a product,
consumers usually change brands to compare which product really suits their
needs both in terms of convenience, availability and price. After the consumer
shows a positive attitude towards a brand, he will have a commitment and intend
to continue to buy it in the future brand loyalty.
High demand for ice cream in recent years has
made ice cream manufacturers compete to boost sales growth, including PT.
Unilever Indonesia Tbk. One of the largest and first milk processing companies
in Indonesia, PT. Unilever Indonesia Tbk needs to take action that is used as a
strategy to maintain national ice cream market share.
Here is the market share data of the ice cream
industry in Indonesia for 3 years:
Table 1. Market Share of South Jakarta Ice Cream Industry 2016 - 2018
|
No |
Brand |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
|
1 |
Wall's |
72,1 % |
70,7 % |
68,0 % |
|
2 |
Campina |
23,0 % |
26,31 % |
28,4 % |
|
3 |
Glico Wings |
1,7 % |
0,9 % |
1,0 % |
Data Source: PT.
Lotte Mart Indonesia
From the data
figure 1. we can see in the market share table above. Table Market share for
Walls ice cream shows a significant decline, Wall's ice cream products during
2016 to 2018 experienced a very drastic decline. With the problem of declining
sales, a way is needed to increase sales of wall's ice cream products. Consumer
purchasing decisions to buy Wall's ice cream products can be influenced by
several factors, including product differentiation, price perception, and brand
image provided by the company.
Based on the
background description of the problem above, the author is interested in
conducting research entitled “THE INFLUENCE
OF PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION, PRICE PERCEPTION, AND BRAND IMAGE ON THE PURCHASE
DECISION OF WALL'S ICE CREAM AT LOTTE MART SOUTH JAKARTA IN 2020"
RESEARCH METHOD
Object of Research
In this study, the object of
research is the decision to purchase Walls ice cream products at Lotte Mart
stores in South Jakarta which is influenced by several independent variables,
namely product differentiation, price perception, and brand image.
Data Sources and Types
Data Sources
Data collection in this study
was carried out using questionnaires filled out by respondents. Respondents in
this study were consumers who made purchases at Lotte Mart stores in South
Jakarta and made their own purchasing decisions.
Data type
The type of data used in this
study is primary data. Primary data is data obtained from surveys collected
based on the distribution of questionnaires. In this study, researchers used
cross-section data. Cross-section data design is research activities carried
out at a certain time. Furthermore, based on these facts, conclusions are made
about research problems that want to be proven or sought for relationships,
thus the type of data in this study is "primary data that is cross section".
Operational
Definition and Variable Measurement
Table 2. Operational
Definition
|
Variable |
Variable
Definition |
Indicators |
|
Product
Differentiation (X1) |
Product
Differentiation is the creation of a product or product image that is quite
different from products that have been circulating with the intention to
attract consumers |
·
Form ·
Feature ·
Adjustment ·
Performance Quality ·
Quality of Conformity ·
Durability ·
Reliability ( Reability) ·
Easy to fix (Repairbility) ·
Style ( style) Source : Sahetapy
(2013:411) |
|
Price Perception
(X2) |
Price perception is
the view or perception of price how customers perceive a certain price that
has a strong influence on purchase intent and purchase satisfaction. |
·
Affordability ·
Price Compliance with
Product Quality ·
Price Match with Benefits Source : Hose
(2013:75) |
|
Brand Image (X3) |
Brand image is the thoughts and beliefs that sellers
want to create to consumers, so that the brand is in the consumer's memory
when seeing / remembering the brand. |
·
Advantages of brand
associations ·
The power of brand
association ·
Peculiarities of brand
associations Source: Juliani
(2012:4) |
|
Purchase decision (Y) |
Purchasing decisions
are decisions taken by consumers to buy after potential customers consider
factors. |
·
Stability in a Product ·
Habits in buying products ·
Give recommendations to
others ·
Evaluation of Products ·
Make a repurchase Source : Arsita
(2016:4) |
Advanced
Table 3.4
Analysis
Methods
Descriptive analysis is to provide an empirical picture
of the data collected in Ferdinand's research (2013: 72) the data comes from
respondents' answers to the items contained in the questionnaire processed by
grouping and to discuss then given an explanation.
Inferential
analysis is an analytical technique used to analyze data and samples whose
results apply to the population (Arifin 2017: 201).
Test
Instruments
The validity test is used to measure whether or not a
questionnaire is valid Ghozali (2011: 53). According to Ghozali (2011:
47) Reliability test is a tool to measure a questionnaire that has indicators
of variables
Classical
Assumption Test
This classical assumption test aims to test the accuracy
of multiple regression methods. The classical assumption tests used are
normality tests, autocorrelation tests, multicolliniearity tests, and
heteroscedasticity tests.
The
normality test aims to find out whether the regression model, bound variable
and independent variable have a normal distribution or not because a good regression
model has a normal or close to normal data distribution Ghozali (2011: 160).
According
to Ghozali (2011: 110) The autocorrelation test aims to test whether in a
regression model linear regression model there is a disruptor error in period t with an error in period t-1 (previous).
According
to Ghozali (2011: 139) The heteroscedasticity test aims to test whether in the
regression model there is an inequality of variance from the residual of one
observation to another.
This
multicollinearity test aims to test whether the regression model found a
correlation between Ghozali's independent variables (2011: 105). A good
regression model does not have correlation between independent variables.
According
to Imam Ghozali (2013: 96) Regression analysis is used to measure the strength
of the relationship between two or more variables, also showing the direction
of the relationship between dependent and independent variables. Multiple
linear regression analysis is a linear relationship between two or more
independent variables (X) with the dependent variable (Y). The regression model
used is expressed in the following equation:
Y
= a + b1 X1 + b1 X2 + b1 X3+ e
Information:
Y = Purchase Decision
α = Constant
b1+b2+ b3= Multiple
Regression Coefficient
X1 = Product Differentiation
X2 = Price Perception
X3 = Brand Image
e = Standard Error
Model
Due Diligence
The F
test basically shows whether all the independent variables included in the
model have a shared influence on the dependent variable. According to Ghozali (2013), the coefficient of determination (R2)
is used to measure how far the model is able to explain the variation of
independent variables.
The t
test is to determine the significance of the influence of the independent variable
hypothetically or individually on the dependent variable
|
|
Table
1. Validity Test Results
|
Variable |
R Calculate |
R Table |
Result |
|
|
Product Differentiation |
||||
|
Statement
1.1 |
0,757 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
1.2 |
0,774 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
1.3 |
0,692 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
1.4 |
0,773 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
1.5 |
0,739 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Price Perception |
||||
|
Statement
2.1 |
0,720 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
2.2 |
0,688 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
2.2 |
0,689 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Brand Image |
||||
|
Statement
3.1 |
0,715 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
3.2 |
0,720 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
3.3 |
0,635 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Purchasing Decision |
||||
|
Statement
4.1 |
0,588 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
4.2 |
0,689 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
4.3 |
0,596 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
4.4 |
0.617 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
|
Statement
4.5 |
0,644 |
0,196 |
Valid |
|
Table
2. Reliability Test Results
|
Variable |
Cronbach's
Alpha |
Result |
|
Purchase Decision (Y) |
0.828 |
Reliable |
|
Product Differentiation (X1) |
0.897 |
Reliable |
|
Price Perception (X2) |
0.835 |
Reliable |
|
Brand Image (X3) |
0.830 |
Reliable |
Classic
Asusmtion Test
Table 3. Normality
Test Results
|
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test |
||
|
|
Unstandardized Residual |
|
|
N |
100 |
|
|
Normal Parametersa,b |
Mean |
.0000000 |
|
Std. Deviation |
1.96482049 |
|
|
Most Extreme Differences |
Absolute |
.079 |
|
Positive |
.052 |
|
|
Negative |
-.079 |
|
|
Test Statistics |
.079 |
|
|
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) |
.125c |
|
|
a. Test distribution is Normal. |
||
|
b. Calculated from data. |
||
|
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction. |
||
Based
on the results of the normality test in the table above, it is known that the
value of Asymp.Sig. (2-tailed) of 0.125 > 0.05 which means that the data is
normally distributed and the regression model has met the normality assumption.
Autocorrelation
Test Results
The results of the Autocorrelation Test are as f
. Based on the research, it
is known that the value of Durbin Watson (DW) is 2.103, then we will compare
this value with the value of the significance table of 5%, the number of
samples is: 100 and the number of independent variables (X) is: 3, then
obtained DU of: 1.736. The DW value of 2.103 is greater than the upper limit
(DU) which is: 1.736 and less than (4-DU) = 4 – 1.736 = 2.103 (1.736 < 2.103
< 2.264), so it can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation
Heterokedasticity
Test Results
Table 4. Glacier test
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Type |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
-.582 |
.611 |
|
-.952 |
.344 |
|
X1 |
.067 |
.028 |
.251 |
2.102 |
.118 |
|
|
X2 |
.008 |
.053 |
.018 |
.147 |
.884 |
|
|
X3 |
.078 |
.061 |
.159 |
1.284 |
.202 |
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: Abs_Res |
||||||
Table 4. shows that all variables have a
significant value greater than 0.05 so that it can be concluded that the
regression model in this study did not occur heteroscedasticity.
Table
5. Multicollinearity Test Results
|
Coefficientsa |
||||
|
Type |
Collinearity Statistics |
|
||
|
Tolerance |
VIF |
|
||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
|
|
|
|
Diferensiasi_Produk |
.833 |
1.201 |
|
|
|
Persepsi_Harga |
.587 |
1.703 |
|
|
|
Citra_Merek |
.598 |
1.673 |
|
|
|
a. Dependent
Variable: Keputusan_Pembelian |
||||
Source: processed data SPSS 23.0 (2020)
From table 5, it can be seen that all
the independent variables above have a tolerance value greater than 0.1 and a
VIF value smaller than 10, so it can
be concluded that there is no multicollinearity for all independent variables,
namely product differentiation (X 1), price perception (X 2)
and brand image (X3).
Table
6. F Test Results
|
ANOVA |
||||||
|
Type |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
185.449 |
3 |
61.816 |
15.527 |
.000b |
|
Residuals |
382.191 |
96 |
3.981 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
567.640 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: Keputusan_Pembelian |
||||||
|
b. Predictors: (Constant), Citra_Merek, Diferensiasi_Produk,
Persepsi_Harga |
||||||
Source: processed
data SPSS 23.0 (2020)
Based
on table 6, it can be known that the F
value is calculated > Ftable
or 15.527 > 2.70 and a significant value of 0.000 < 0.05, then the
variables of product differentiation, price perception and brand image together
have a significant effect on the variable of purchasing decisions
Table
7. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Type |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
14.540 |
1.162 |
|
12.511 |
.000 |
|
X1 |
.119 |
.053 |
.205 |
2.233 |
.028 |
|
|
X2 |
.221 |
.100 |
.241 |
2.209 |
.030 |
|
|
X3 |
.283 |
.115 |
.266 |
2.452 |
.016 |
|
|
|
||||||
Y = 0.205 X1 + 0.241 X2 + 0.266 X3
Information:
Y = Purchase Decision
X1 = Product Differentiation
X2 = Price Perception
X3 = Brand Image
Here is the
meaning of the data that has been presented in table 7 :
1. Based on standardized coefficients the product
differentiation variable is 0.205 and positive. This shows that if the better
the product difference about wall's ice cream product differentiation, the
faster the customer makes a purchase decision.
2. Based on standardized coefficients of price perception
variable of 0.241 and positive. This shows that the better the customer's
perception. About the price perception of Wall's ice cream products, the faster
customers make purchasing decisions
3. Based on standard coefficients of brand image
variables of 0.266 and positive. This shows that the better or better the brand
image of Wall's ice cream, the faster customers decide to buy.
Hypothesis Test (Test t)
Table
8. Test Results t
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Type |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
14.540 |
1.162 |
|
12.511 |
.000 |
|
X1 |
.119 |
.053 |
.205 |
2.233 |
.028 |
|
|
X2 |
.221 |
.100 |
.241 |
2.209 |
.030 |
|
|
X3 |
.283 |
.115 |
.266 |
2.452 |
.016 |
|
|
|
||||||
Product Differentiation Hypothesis Testing
Based on table 8, it can be seen that the calculated
t value is greater than the
table t or 2.233 > 1.984 and
the significance value is below the error rate (alpha) of 0.028 < 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is a
significant influence between product differentiation on purchasing decisions.
Price Perception Hypothesis Testing
Based on table 4.16, it can be seen that the calculated
t value is greater than the
table t or 2.209 > 1.984 and
the significance value is below the error rate (alpha) of 0.030 < 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is a
significant influence between price perception and purchasing decisions.
Brand Image Hypothesis Testing
Based on table
4.16, it can be seen that the calculated t value is greater than the table t or 2.452 > 1.984 and the significance
value is below the error rate (alpha)
of 0.016 < 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is a significant
influence between brand image on purchasing decisions.
Discussion
The
Effect of Product Differentiation on Purchasing Decisions
The
results of hypothesis testing, it was found that product differentiation has a
positive and significant effect on purchasing decisions. This positive and
significant influence indicates that product differentiation for wall's ice
cream may influence purchasing decisions. Case and Fair in Permana et al (2013:
442) explained that in order for product differentiation to be successful,
consumers must know about product quality and availability. This product
differentiation includes all the efforts that companies make to create
differentiation between competitors with the aim of providing the best value
and satisfaction for consumers. The results of this study are in accordance
with research conducted by Saputro (2012) in his research, that product
differentiation has an influence on purchasing decisions, if product
differentiation is getting better, it will result in consumer willingness to
purchase a product.
The
Influence of Price Perception on Purchasing Decisions
Based on the results of hypothesis
testing, it was found that price perception has a positive and significant
effect on purchasing decisions. A positive and significant influence indicates
that an increase in the price perception of wall's ice cream has an effect on
improving purchasing decisions. Cockril and Goode
(2010: 368) stated that price perception is a psychological factor from various
aspects that are important in consumer reactions to prices, that's why price
perception is the reason why someone makes a decision to buy. The
results of this study are in accordance with Sari's (2018) research, price perception is one of the factors
that can influence purchasing decisions. Of course, before buying a product,
you will consider the price of the product with the benefits that will be
obtained in the future, will benefit or even harm the consumers themselves,
then the results of the study price perception has a positive effect on
purchasing decisions.
The
influence of Brand Image on purchasing decisions
Based
on the results of hypothesis testing, it was found that brand image has a
positive and significant effect on purchasing decisions. A positive and
significant influence indicates that the improvement of Wall's ice cream brand
image has an influence on purchasing decisions. According to Kotler and Keller (2012: 768) brand image is a set of perceptions
and beliefs owned by customers towards a brand which is reflected through
associations that exist in customer memory. When a brand image has been
able to build product character and provide a
value proposition, then convey the character of the product to its
customers uniquely, it means that the brand has provided emotional power more
than the rational power possessed by the product. This will make customers
associate positive things in their minds when they think of the brand. The results of Dike's research (2016) stated that brand image has
an influence on purchasing decisions because the information a product has
about the product and service quality already has a good brand image in the
minds of consumer
CONCLUSION
The research findings
indicate several significant conclusions regarding the purchasing decisions of
Wall's ice cream at Lotte Mart South Jakarta. Firstly, product differentiation
demonstrates a positive and notable impact on purchasing decisions, suggesting
that maintaining a high level of product differentiation will lead to an
increase in ice cream purchases. Secondly, price perception also exhibits a
positive and considerable influence on purchasing decisions, implying that
enhancing positive price perceptions will contribute to higher purchase
decisions. Thirdly, brand image significantly affects purchasing decisions,
emphasizing that upholding a favorable corporate image will result in increased
purchases of Wall's ice cream at Lotte Mart South Jakarta. Moreover, the study
highlights that brand image holds the most substantial contribution in
explaining purchase decisions, followed by price perception as the second
contributor, and product differentiation as the third contributor in
elucidating the purchase decision dynamics of Wall's ice cream at Lotte Mart in
South Jakarta.
REFERENCES
Arifin.
(2011). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R & D.
Erlangga
Cockrill, Antje dan Mark M.H. Goode. (2010).
Perceived Price And Price Decay In the DVD Market. The Journal of Product And Brand Management.
Ferdinand, A. (2013). Metode Penelitian
Manajemen. Semarang. Badan Penerbit
Universitas Diponegoro
Ghozali, I. (2011). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariete Dengan Program SPSS. Universitas
Diponegoro Semarang
Iryanita, Rizky & Sugiarto, Y. (n.d.). “Analisis
Pengaruh Citra Merek, Persepsi Harga, Dan Persepsi Kualitas Produk terhadap
keputusan pembelian (Studi Pada Konsumen Produk ATBM Pekalongan)” http://eprints.undip.ac.id/68440/1/33
Juliani Leliga, F. (2012). Analisa Pengaruh Brand Image Terhadap Customer Loyalty Dengan Customer
Satisfaction Sebagai Mediator Pada The Dreamland Luxury Villas And Spa, Bali.
http://publication.petra.ac.id/index.php/manajemenperhotelan/article/view/202
Kotler, Philip and Kevin Lane Keller, (2012). Marketing Management, Edisi 14, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall Published
Marliza, S. (2012). Pengaruh Kesadaran Atas Merek (Brand Awareness) Terhadap Keputusan
Pembelian Smartphone Blackberry (Studi Pada Mahasiswa Politeknik Negeri
Sriwijaya). Skripsi. Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya. Palembang
Sahetapy Pratama, J. (2013). Diferensiasi Produk,
Strategi Merek, Pengaruhnya Terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Meubeul UD Sinar Sakti
Manado. EMBA, Vol 1 No 3, 411–420.
Saputro, P. (2012). Pengaruh Gaya Hidup,
Harga, dan Diferensiasi Produk Dalam Melakukan Keputusan Pembelian Handphone
Android di Universitas Islam Negeri Jakarta. Jurnal Administrasi
Bisnis S1 Universitas Islam Negeri Jakarta, 32(1), 128–134.
Sari, D. Y., Tjahjaningsih, E., Hayuningtias, K. A.,
Manajemen, P. S., Ekonomi, F., Pascasarjana, B., & Stikubank, U. (2018). Terhadap Proses Keputusan Pembelian Kapur
Barus Merek Bagus ( Studi Pada Konsumen Giant Bsb Semarang https://www.unisbank.ac.id/ojs/index.php/sendi_u/article/view/6050
Selang, C. A. D. (2013). Bauran Pemasaran (Marketing
Mix) Pengaruhnya Terhadap Loyalitas Konsumen Pada Freshmart Bahu Manado. EMBA,
Vol. 1, No, 71 – 80.
Setiadi, J. N. (2003). Pengaruh persepsi harga, citra merek, dan word of mouth terhadap
keputusan pembelian handphone xiaomi di Surabaya. Jurnal Manajemen (2011) 1-25
Venesia, Y., & Harjati, L. (2015). Pengaruh
Kualitas Layanan Dan Persepsi Harga
Terhadap Kepuasan Pelanggan Pada Maskapai Penerbangan Tiger Air Mandala.
E-Journal WIDYA Ekonomika, 1(1), 64–74.
