**4. Results and Discussion**

Provided KMO test (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test) has indicated the adequacy of the used statistical sample in case of brands with consumer's loyalty absence as well as in case of brands with consumer's loyalty presence (>0.6). When testing the brand value sources in case of brand loyalty absence, the value of 0.902 has been reached, and in the case of brand loyalty presence, the value of 0.931 has been reached. Barlett's test of sphericity has proved the existence of dependence between variables by acquiring the resulting value at 0.00 in case of brands with consumer's loyalty absence as well as in case of brands with consumer's loyalty presence (<0.05). We have also detected statistical relevance of four relevant factors in both cases.

The testimonial value of factor analysis in case of brand value sources research when brand loyalty is absent has reached a value of 76.552%. (See Table 2)


**Table 2.** Total variance explained—brand loyalty absence.

Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

In case of brand loyalty absence, the existence of four relevant factors with significant components has been proved. These factors are (1) imageries with five components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha has been 0.813; (2) benefits with five components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha has been 0.842; (3) attitudes with four components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha value has been 0.849, and (4) attributes with five components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha has been 0.813. (See Table 3)


**Table 3.** Rotated component matrix—brand loyalty absence.

> Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

The creation of a rotated component matrix has allowed to rank the brand value sources in case of brand loyalty absence according to their priority in the impact on consumer's perception as follows: (1) imageries; (2) benefits; (3) attitudes; (4) attributes. (See Table 4)


**Table 4.** Brand value sources—brand loyalty absence.

Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

The testimonial value of factor analysis in case of brand value sources research when brand loyalty is present has reached a value of 74.614%. (See Table 5)


**Table 5.** Total variance explained—brand loyalty presence.

Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

In case of brand loyalty presence, the existence of four relevant factors with significant components has been proved. These factors are (1) imageries with five components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha has been 0.854; (2) benefits with five components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha has been 0.837; (3) attitudes with four components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha value has been 0.841 and (4) attributes with five components where the value of Cronbach's Alpha has been 0.869. (See Table 6)


**Table 6.** Rotated component matrix—brand loyalty presence.

Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

The creation of a rotated component matrix has allowed ranking the brand value sources in case of brand loyalty presence according to their priority in the impact on consumer's perception as follows: (1) imageries; (2) benefits; (3) attitudes; (4) attributes. (See Table 7)


Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

Thus, it is possible to make the conclusion that importance of factors does not vary across analyzed categories of brands of alimentary goods (i.e., brand loyalty absence vs. presence). For detailed information, see Table 8.



Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

As it is obvious, the brand value sources ranking created on the basis of their priority in the impact on consumer's perception in case of brands with consumer's loyalty absence is the same as in case of brands with consumer's loyalty presence. However, when analyzing groups of components deeply, we can see that di fferences exist. The internal ranking inside identified groups of components is equal only in case of the less important group of brand value sources—in case of attributes. All others brand value

sources are internally di fferent from the point of view of relevance of individual components of these groups of brand value sources. The most visible example can be seen in scope of imageries, where only one component of brand value sources has the same ranking in case of brand loyalty absence and in case of brand loyalty presence. Thus, in case of brand loyalty absence, the order is the following: (1) satisfaction; (2) happiness; (3) expectations; (4) positive associations, and (5) certainty, while in case of brand loyalty presence, the order is the following: (1) satisfaction; (2) certainty; (3) positive associations; (4) happiness, and (5) expectations. This finding indicates the need of a selective approach to brand value sources and implementation of so far defined patterns in the practice of brand management.

While in both cases satisfaction is considered a main component in case of brands of alimentary goods, complementary components should be used di fferently. In case of brand value absence (similarly in phase of brand value building), it is happiness and expectations which should be mainly used, while in case of brand value presence (similarly in phase of brad value managing), it is certainty and positive associations. In case of benefits, the order is also mixed - in case of brand loyalty absence, the most important component is the ability to increase social status, while in case of brand loyalty presence, it is the ability to make it easier to ge<sup>t</sup> friends. Based on these findings, it is crucial to unify the consumer's satisfaction (as a main component of the most important brand value source) with corporate social responsibility and to implement sustainable managerial tools focused on stimulation of the consumer's socially conformal behavior, mainly on the basis of this brand value source. For detailed information about internal order of components inside identified brand value sources of alimentary goods, see Table 9 as a modification of Table 1.


### **Table 9.** Brand value sources and components.

Source: Authors' own research, 2019.

Another important dimension of these findings lies in the di fferences between the order of brand value sources which have been identified generally and in case of alimentary goods. In case of brand loyalty absence, both categories are characterized by imageries as a main brand value source, while in case of brand loyalty presence, imageries are the most important only for brands of alimentary goods. Generally, imageries have been replaced by benefits. Thus, the need of a selective approach to sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> across product categories which has been so far only assumed, has been definitely proved [45–50,52]. For detailed information, see Table 10.


**Table 10.** Comparative ranking of grouped brand value components (in general/alimentary goods).

> Source: Kliestikova et al. [60].

Practical implications of these results indicate that imageries are the leading brand value source in case of brand loyalty absence regardless of the category of product (i.e., in general or in case of alimentary goods). On the contrary, in case of brand loyalty presence, the leading brand value source with significant impact on brand value subjectively perceived by consumer is benefits, while in case of alimentary goods, imageries remain to be the most relevant brand value source. According to this fact, we can observe these main findings: (1) in general, brand value sources vary due to the phase of brand management, while in case of alimentary goods, brand value sources remain identical; (2) the position of brand loyalty is ambivalent when applying point of view of stimuli vs. point of view of obstacle to prospective sustainable brand management, and (3) traditional general patterns of sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> are inapplicable in case of brands of alimentary goods.

Thus, we can state that the process of brand value building and managemen<sup>t</sup> in case of alimentary goods does not have to be selective if it is connected with the phase of brand value building or brand value managemen<sup>t</sup> (taking brand value sources into account and not their components). This coherent approach facilitates the managerial practice of brands of alimentary goods, where it is enough to identify relevant components of imageries as the most important brand value sources (happiness, expectations, satisfaction, certainty, and positive associations) at the very beginning of the process of brand value building, and these components can be subsequently used during all the brand life cycle. A representative product which declares the applicability of this approach is Coca-Cola, which is systematically built on the basis of joy and happiness as the leading brand value pillars.

On the other hand, as it has not been identified the di fference between brand value sources of alimentary goods regarding to the presence vs. absence of brand loyalty, we cannot conclude that its existence is vital in the process of sustainable brand management. It means that managers of brands of alimentary goods should not expect bigger receptivity of sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> activities by the customers in case of brand loyalty presence. In other words, if the transition to sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> is done and the consumer identifies that it is not in accordance with brand value source accented so far, the brand value could be harmed.

The fact that we have identified the di fference between brand value sources in case of brand loyalty presence vs. brand loyalty absence among categories verifies the presumption that universal sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> patterns should not be applied, as individual product categories are specific, and the modification of formulated models and processes of sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> should be supported by further market, opinion, and social research to arrange optimal applicability and e ffective goal fulfilment in scope of sustainable brand management.

We have confirmed that the main task for managers of not only formally but really sustainably manageable brands is to identify internal motives and brand value sources of their consumers and to co-act in the process of market education as one of the prerequisites of socially sustainable development [17,61]. Similarly, we verified the importance of satisfaction-a ffected trust and brand loyalty in the category of alimentary goods [23,24]. On the other hand, we have rejected the theory which highlights the importance of emotional sources of brand value. Thus, the scientific gap lying in the need of the mechanisms of behavioral economics investigation has been disputed [21]. In scope of these facts, it is also disputable the phenomenon of so-called love brands and its e ffectiveness in the

process of brand loyalty creation and managemen<sup>t</sup> [22]. When analyzing these findings, it is possible to apply specific point of view based on the regional psychographic specifics of consumers [34–39]. It is because we have accepted theories from authors who investigated regionally closer markets, while the theories of other authors have been rejected. Such a specific attitude of Slovak consumers to the brands of alimentary goods can be the reason of the phenomenon of double quality of food, which is typical for Slovak market in comparison with other markets of neighbor countries (mainly Austria). Surprisingly, although double quality has been clearly proven by independent tests, Slovak consumers do not change their attitudes towards brands and they follow their buying habits. This fact is extremely dangerous in scope of sustainable brand managemen<sup>t</sup> concept implementation because brands of alimentary goods which are subjectively perceived as valuable are not motivated enough to behave responsibly towards society, and consumers do not have motivation to be active in the process of information searching. Thus, it is extremely important to analyze value sources of brands characterized by presence vs. absence of consumer loyalty and to apply a conscious and responsible approach to the consumer´s loyalty as to the one of the leading buying behavior motives. However, there are still possibilities for further research that should be focused in more detail on the specifics of consumer segmentation. A possible way to obtain brand managemen<sup>t</sup> benefits in this case is the application of the generation approach. It is because we can suppose that the ranking of brand value sources and their components in case of alimentary goods varies if analyzing Generations X, Y, and Z.
