“Passenger vehicle brand meaning among Generations X and Y in South Africa”

This study investigated the meaning of passenger motor vehicle brands among Generations X and Y in South Africa, a developing country. The study was conducted in the form of a quantitative survey at four universities in KwaZulu-Natal to access a spread of Generations X and Y respondents. It aimed to generate insights into consumer perceptions and choices regarding these two generations’ preferred motor vehicle brands who account for the bulk of car buyers. The study investigated specific brand dimensions, namely, factors related to quality, value, personal and group identity, status, and family traditions. The main finding was that the personal or individualistic factors, namely quality, value, and personal identity, were more important than the group-oriented factors, namely status, group identity, and family tradition. The implication is that marketers should focus on the buyer’s individualistic perceptions, wants, and needs, rather than those that are influenced by others through group processes or perceptions. This research has added to current knowledge on consumer behavior regarding motor vehicle brands by investigating the factors that influence the Generations X and Y buyer decision-making process in a developing country.


INTRODUCTION
Competition for passenger motor vehicle sales is extreme (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015), and customers must make many comparisons and evaluations before deciding on a vehicle to buy.Generation X (born between 1965 and 1976) spends about 15% more than Generation Y (born between 1977 and 1994) on buying passenger vehicles (Forrester, 2012; Kotler, Armstrong, & Tait, 2014), making them the second-largest consumer group (Lissitsa & Kol, 2015).These generation groups account for 41.8% of the South African population, constituting the prime working age (IndexMundi, 2019).Since Generation Y represents the future customers for motor vehicles (Nadeem, Andreini, Salo, & Laukkanen, 2015), motor manufacturers need to understand these potential customers' generational differences and the vehicles that satisfy their respective needs.
Globalization has led to this increasingly competitive motor vehicle marketing environment with increasing cost pressures that require outsourcing for low-cost manufacturing, while at the same time requiring an increasing emphasis on quality and productivity (Engineering News, 2011).According to Martin-Pena, Diaz-Garrido, and Sanchez-Lopez (2014), the damage done to the environment by industrial activity is a major concern for consumers, especially considering the large quantities of resources consumed and the environmental risks.This increasing green attitude influences firms' environments, forcing businesses, including the motor industry, to change their production and business practices.Carrington et al. (2014) state that, unlike Generation Y, Generation X consumers are aware of green technology and eco-friendly motor vehicles.They suggest that for motor companies to market to Generation Y effectively, they need to invest in consumer education because few Generation Y consumers truly understand the benefits of eco-friendly motor vehicles.In contrast, Allender and Richards (2012) maintain that Generation Y is worried about the environment, and so it makes sense for manufacturers to stress the environmental benefits of their vehicles, even though economic benefits mainly influence generation Y. From a social perspective, Generation Y cares about how others view them, so emphasizing a brand's green credentials is also important.These differing attitudes of the two generations, and the uncertainty regarding their perceptions about motor vehicles, indicate the importance of understanding their knowledge and beliefs about motor brands.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the meaning of motor car brands and whether they differ between Generation X and Generation Y.To achieve this aim, two research objectives were set: • To identify the perceived meaning of motor car brands by Generation X and Generation Y.
• To identify if the perceived meanings of the motor car brand constructs differ between Generation X and Generation Y.

Branding factors
Brand commitment explains how customers perceive brands and includes factors such as brand purchase, usage, attitudes, satisfaction, and image (Keller, 2014).Different brand communications can address different target customers according to their level of brand commitment (Kim et al., 2014 They use status-seeking consumption to show off their wealth and purchasing power to their social networks (Eastman & Liu, 2012).This obviously could have a significant effect on motor vehicle brand choice.These differences between Generation X and Generation Y result in different perceptions of brands and different attitudes towards the companies that market them.As mentioned above, they also have different ideas about how information about brands should be communicated.Relevant research is limited, but Le Breton-Miller and Miller (2016) found differences between Generations X and Y concerning their brand preferences and buyer behavior.

Brand meaning
According to Lee, James, and Kim (2014), products have personality images that communicate their messages.These product images, stored as personal and social meanings in memory, enable a product or service to be differentiated from its competition.Consumers use the meanings associated with brands to understand intangible aspects of the product (e.g., quality) and to communicate aspects of their identity.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional method was used to determine the overall perceptions of what passenger motor vehicle brands mean to Generations X and Y.

Respondents
The target population of this study is anyone classified as Generation X or Generation Y.To facilitate data collection, the authors delimited the population to staff and students at all four public universities in KwaZulu-Natal province (University of KwaZulu-Natal, Mangosuthu University of Technology, Durban University of Technology, and University of Zululand).University staff and students were recruited mostly via in-class interviews for students (predominantly Generation Y) and e-mailed questionnaires for staff (predominantly Generation X).Where necessary to fill the final quotas, on-campus intercepts were used.The selection criteria of Generation X and Generation Y and the different demographic characteristics were set, as shown in Table 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.16(3).2020.01

Sampling
A two-stage non-probability sampling method was adopted.First quota sampling was used with quotas set, as shown in Table 1, to ensure the sample provided an adequate spread across the universities and the relevant demographic characteristics.Although not attempting to be proportionally representative or generalizable, the authors did wish to make sure that the sample reflected opinions across the demographic categories.Therefore, they needed at least 100 respondents for each major breakdown and 50 respondents for each minor breakdown, as suggested by Diamantopolous and Schlegelmilch (1997).A total sample of 400, 100 from each university campus, and split equally between Generation X and Generation Y, was drawn, as shown in Table 1.With a 95% level of significance, an allowed error of 0,1 (on a 7-point Likert type scale), and assuming a variance of 1, the t-distribution requires a sample size of 384 (excluding a correction factor) (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013).Thus, a total sample of 400 was sought to allow for any unusable or rejected responses.
Step 2 of the sampling method used convenience sampling to fulfill the various quotas.

Data collection instrument
A structured questionnaire was developed based on the literature review, adapted from a questionnaire on the meaning of branded products, developed, and validated by Strizhakova et al. (2008).Seven-point Likert scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree), as recommended by Bearden, Netemeyer, and Haws (2011), were used.
A pilot study was conducted at one of the target universities to test the questionnaire and assess its quality and efficiency.Using Cronbach's Alpha, the reliability, although low for two constructs, was acceptable and would probably improve with a larger sample (see Table 2).Face validity of the questionnaire was assessed by a subject matter expert and a statistician.Then, an exploratory factor analysis, using principal component analysis with varimax rotation, was conducted on the pilot sample to assess the questionnaire's construct validity.The findings were satisfactory and confirmed that the questionnaire would measure what it is intended to measure.

Collection method
Four lecturers from different universities were recruited to assist with data collection.The four lecturers were trained on how to collect the data from other staff members and students.The use of e-mails and in-class collection methods were used as they were the most efficient and effective.Besides, some responses were sought through on-campus intercepts to fulfill the quotas.After obtaining gatekeepers' permission from the four universities and ethical clearance from Durban University of Technology (as this was the organization conducting the research), data were collected over three months.

Data analysis
The data collected from questionnaires were edited and checked for errors and analyzed using SPSS version 23 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences).Descriptive analysis with tables and figures, including univariate and bivariate analyses, was used to present the results, and where necessary inferential statistics will be used to test the significance of findings.

FINDINGS
In this subsection, the sample profile is presented, followed by the descriptive statistics for each question, and finally, the analysis and discussion of the four research questions.

Demographic profile of respondents
The total sample of 409 respondents is presented in Table 3. The

Factor analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was run to establish whether the various questions measure the constructs as identified from the literature, the results of which are shown in and are often subject to intergenerational influence within families.Since their research was done on developing European nations, they felt that it would be inappropriate to just accept their findings as also relevant in an African country, so they chose to retail the six-factor model.

Reliability
Reliability was assessed via Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha, with a coefficient of 0.7 or higher being considered reliable (Katranci, 2014).As shown in Table 5, coefficients above 0.7 were obtained for all the dimensions, except for "value factors" (0.674).Since Denscombe (2010) suggests that coefficients above 0.60 are significant, especially for a newly designed instrument, the "value factors" dimension was left in the analysis model. in Table 6.Based on the 7-point Likert scale, it can be seen from Table 6 that the most important dimensions (considerably above the Likert midpoint of 4) are "quality factors" (5.6), "value factors" (4.87), and "personal identity factors" (4.67), with the other dimensions having means considerably lower.
These findings from the descriptive statistics can be visualized through Figure 1, namely that both age cohorts view quality, values, and personal identity factors as more important than the group identity, status, and tradition factors.

Analysis by construct
The authors next set out to identify if there were any significant differences between the two age cohorts.Therefore, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean differences between the respective age groups.These findings are presented in Table 7.
Although the Generation X means are mostly higher than the Generation Y means, these differences are mostly not statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.No questions for value, personal identity and group identity, and only one each for Status and Tradition, reflected a statistically significant difference between the two groups.
Regarding quality, however, three of the five questions showed a statistically significant difference.Therefore, it can be concluded that Generation X tend to use the brand name as an indicator of quality more than Generation Y do.Other than the quality construct, it can therefore be concluded that there is no real difference between the two generational cohorts in their understanding of brand meaning for motor vehicles.This finding was supported by a logistic regression analysis conducted to identify causal relationships amongst the constructs.As seen in Table 8, it is apparent that quality and status factors contribute significantly to the regression model, confirming that they are the most important factors that influence brand perceptions of motor vehicles.

DISCUSSION
The statistical data presented above show that Generation X tend to hold stronger opinions about the meaning of car brands, but only as indicators of quality, and to a lesser extent, as an indicator of status.Their opinions on these two con-structs are significantly different to Generation Y. Generation Y slightly (but not statistically significantly) see brands as extensions of personal identity and are slightly influenced by traditional factors such as family.This makes sense considering Generation Y's individuality, youth, and lesser experience.Overall, the respondents' perceptions of

CONCLUSION
Regarding the first objective, namely the perceived meaning of motor car brands, the findings show that brand names are strongly linked to perceptions of the quality of the motor vehicle, and to a lesser extent, are linked to the consumers' own values and their individual personalities.Issues related to group identity, status and tradition are less important when considering a car brand.
When considering Objective 2, namely whether there is a difference in the car brand construct between Generations X and Y, Generation X tends to hold strong opinions about the meaning of car brands, especially regarding brands as indicators of quality and status, which are significantly stronger than the perceptions held by Generation Y. Generation Y hold slightly stronger (but not statistically significant) perceptions of brands as extensions of their personal identity, and are also slightly more influenced by traditional factors such as family.This makes sense considering Generation Y tend to be younger and thus less experienced in these matters than Generation X, and so may rely more on older family members or friends and colleagues for advice.However, it must also be remembered that one of the main characteristics of Generation Y is their individualism, which explains the relationship between their brand perceptions and personal identity.
Overall, for both generational cohorts, car brands are more linked to personal/individualistic factors rather than to group factors.In other words, perceptions of motor car brands are more influenced by how consumers see them from their own personal point of view, rather than how friends, colleagues, etc. see them.

Theoretical and practical implications
The motor industry contributes 7% to South Africa's gross domestic product, and exported vehicles to 87 destinations in 2012 (Barnes & Black, 2013).Following South African President Ramaphosa's Investment Summit, motor companies (BMW, Nissan, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz) have pledged to invest R 2.7 billion into the South African motor industry (Johnson et al., 2018).These facts clearly show the importance of this industry to the South African economy.Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the industry's future customers is essential.This means an understanding of Generation Y who will provide a large proportion of the industry's future customers, is essential.
Following an extensive Google Scholar search, only two articles on branding in the motor industry in South Africa were identified.Although the one investigates Generation Y, neither of them addresses the specific question regarding brand meaning for Generation Y. Therefore, this study is important for the future of the South African motor industry and will contribute new academic and practical knowledge about this issue in South Africa.

For motor car marketers
For Generation X, marketers should focus on creating a relationship between the brand name and the perception of product quality, because of the importance of quality to Generation X.At the same time, communications and promotions should tie the brand values to the typical values held by Generation X who rate brand values considerably above the mean score of 4. Promotions should also stress how the brand typifies the personal identity factors typical of Generation X, as these were also rated considerably above the mean.Communication methods for Generation X would need to be the more traditional methods of mass media but can also include media such as social media.
For Generation Y, marketers should focus on how the brand can express the potential buyer's individual personality, reflecting 'me as an individual'.The brand should be presented as unique and meeting the individual's specific needs.This obviously is in addition to linking the brand to the quality concept, as this is also very important to Generation Y.In presenting 'quality' marketers should stress the 'value for money' that good quality provides, Of course, communications can be mainly via technological methods such as social media and should be structured so as to encourage word of mouth.

For further research
This study suffers from the usual limitations experienced by small surveys, namely a small non-probability sample in a limited area, with a relatively limited focus.Therefore, it is suggested that future research be conducted over a wider geographic area and with a bigger demographic sample.Further research could also differentiate between the perceptions of car owners and non-owners, which were not done in this study.It might also be helpful to know if the type of car owned, or most frequently used, influences the perceived brand meaning.

Table 1 .
Sample quota criteria

Table 2 .
Reliability as per pilot study

Table 3 .
Profile of sample Note: a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5.The minimum expected count is 1.99.

Table 5 . Brand meaning constructs Brand constructs Items Cronbach's Mean
Means and standard deviations (SD) for each question, grouped into the six dimensions are presented

Table 4 .
Exploratory factor analysis Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis.Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Table 7 .
Analysis of Variance between the two generations