Potential Impact of Sustainable Business Practices: Brand Equity in Fast Food and Millennials’ Purchase Intentions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments:

The manuscript deals with a timely topic that is of strong interest to both academics and practitioners. This explored the influence of brand value on the purchase intention for local fast

food brands among Chiclayo millennials. A strong case is made for the need of this type of research in the area. The paper has potential if a revision can address a few major and minor suggestions. I will attempt to be more specific in the following sections.

 

 

This research should find a stronger argument regarding (1) why the study is important and (2) why the findings are meaningful for scholars/practitioners. The author(s) tried to describe the important of the study in the introduction section, but it is too weak. The introduction section should be re-written.

 

Literature section is a weak part of the research effort. The author(s) did not review important issues in the given topic.

For instance, in the literature review section, the author(s) discussed “local fast food”. One of the important factors in ‘local food’ is street food. Read the below publication and provide a short literature review (3 or 4 lines) for street food tourism.

 

Praesri, S., Meekun, K., Lee, T.J., & Hyun, S. (2022). Marketing mix factors and a business development model for street food tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 52(6), 123-127.

 

How the author(s) check ‘non-respondent error- check’? There is no mention about the important issue in this manuscript. The authors need to ensure that those who participated are not different to those who didn't participate. This might necessitate a follow up on checking whether there is a group difference between those who responded and those who didn't

 

 

Conclusion: The discussion is a little disappointing and could be written in a much stronger way. Also, there are very little managerial implications, and more specific, poignant recommendations should be provided to the practitioners/managers. This information would give the paper a much better finish. There is very little practical implication for the practitioners. What can the managers/owners can do with the findings suggested in this paper?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised thoroughly, addressing all previously noted concerns

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper content correspond to the topic of the journal.

Presented topic is interesting however this article is not a research work which definitely extends the knowledge in chosen area.  Author needs to indicate more clearly the novelty/contribution of his manuscript.

The main problem of this paper is is that the authors confuse two different concepts: brand value and brand equity.

This mistake appears already in the title, and then in the objective, research questions and literature review. According to Aaker's concept, later developed by Keller, brand awareness, perceived quality, association/image and brand loyalty are elements of brand equity. Brand value is used to determine the financial value of a brand. This error sometimes appears in the literature, while it cannot be duplicated. It is a factual error.

Therefore, you should replace the word "value" with "equity" in the paper (in title, in research questions and in text).

Authors should also provide more relevant and up-to-date citation. Author needs to develop the literature review to place the current work in better context of the scientific progress over the past five years taking into account the current market situation.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised thoroughly, addressing all previously noted concerns

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a topical theme of great interest. The paper is well-structured.

However, there are some specific comments the authors should address.

The authors considered the proposal of Kyguoliene and Zikiene, but it would be important to present a table with the items for each dimension and their respective sources.

The H5 contains two hypotheses, it would be better to consider two hypotheses.

Did the authors carry out a pre-test? It would be important to point this out.

It is also fundamental to present the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension considered in conceptual model. Why did you not perform the confirmatory factor analysis to test how well the measured variables represent the number of constructs?

The authors should present the validation of the assumptions of the regression models considered.

In page 8, authors refer that “Regarding specific objective 1…”; where is defined the specific objective1? And the specific objectives 2 and 3?

In the Results section, the authors analysed hypotheses H1 to H4, but not H5. It would be important to explain this.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised thoroughly, addressing all previously noted concerns

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no difference from previous studies. In other words, this paper lacks originality. Theoretical relationships between concepts are also problematic. For example, causal relationships are established between independent variables.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised thoroughly, addressing all previously noted concerns

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It was improved. The list of references should be checked (number 1 is in the middle).

Author Response

New document 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript, addressing the comments raised in my review report.

Author Response

All its ok

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved

Author Response

All its ok

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf