Measuring Digital Era Impact on Brand Interaction among Young Emerging 
Consumers: A Case Study of Colombian Consumers 
by 
Nelson Cabrera Rios 
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor in Business Administration 
CENTRUM CATÓLICA GRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL 
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DEL PERÚ 
MAASTRICHT SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT 
Santiago de Surco, April, 2017 
© 2017 by Nelson Cabrera 
All Rights Reserved 
Measuring Digital Era Impact on Brand Interaction among Young Emerging Consumers: A 
Case Study of Colombian Consumers 
By 
Nelson Cabrera Rios 
April 2017 
Approved by: 
Fernando D’Alessio, Ph. D., Committee Member 
Sergio Chión, Ph. D., Committee Member 
Luis F. Zegarra, Ph. D., Committee Member 
Accepted and signed: Month, Day, Year (Fernando D’Alessio) 
Accepted and signed: Month, Day, Year (Sergio Chión) 
Accepted and signed: Month, Day, Year (Luis F. Zegarra) 
Month, Day, Year 
Name of Dissertation Approval Authority (Chair) 
Title of Dissertation Approval Authority 
CENTRUM GBS – Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú 
Dedication 
To my loving Mariana, who was my sun while writing my dissertation. 
To my darlings Catalina and Sophia, who supported and encouraged me during the 
process. 
To my sweethearts Sebastian and Geronimo, who grew along with me in these last 
four years. 
Acknowledgements 
Special thanks and recognition to Dr. Luis Felipe Zegarra, who provided me with top- 
notch support and guided me throughout the construction of this thesis. 
Also, big thanks to Dr. Khaled Wahba, who provided me with invaluable advice for 
structural equation modeling, and Dr. Pablo Lucas for his advice in social network analysis 
methods. 
Abstract 
Traditional marketing employs the brand funnel metaphor to explain the purchasing 
process of customers, in order to better aim its efforts towards influencing their decisions. 
Said funnel is based around five stages: awareness, consideration, buy, loyalty and 
engagement. However, there is a new reality of hyper-connected digital consumers, which 
have at their disposition hundreds of means of communication, changing their relationship 
with brands and putting the significance and accuracy of the brand funnel into question. This 
is especially prevalent among young emerging consumers. 
The current study measured and analyzes the impact of the digital era on brand 
interaction among young emerging consumers in the Colombian case, thus focusing on 
emerging markets, while analyzing brands in both mass consumption and durable goods 
markets. A structural equation model (SEM) was created to estimate how these new 
technologies affected the relationships between the stages of the brand funnel, while 
controlling factors such as media drivers, age and socioeconomic stratum. 
It was found that social interactions affect consumers’ confidence and hold a 
significant sway on purchasing decisions, especially among young consumers. Significantly, 
the importance of social network recommendations on purchasing decisions among young 
demographics in emerging markets was validated through the results of the current study. 
ii
Table of Contents 
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ x 
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xiii 
Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................... 1 
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 1 
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................... 9 
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 10 
Significance of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 11 
Nature of the Study .................................................................................................................. 12 
Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 14 
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................... 15 
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................ 16 
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................. 18 
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 20 
Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 21 
Delimitations ............................................................................................................................ 21 
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 22 
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.................................................................................... 25 
Adopting innovation and network autocorrelation ................................................................... 25 
Theories of Low-Level and Variable Audience Activity ......................................................... 26 
Brand loyalty ............................................................................................................................ 28 
Interactive personalization ....................................................................................................... 31 
iii
Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 32 
Consumer generations and social networks ............................................................................. 36 
The effects of digital marketing communication on customer loyalty ..................................... 40 
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 42 
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 45 
Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................................. 47 
Research Design ....................................................................................................................... 47 
Appropriateness of Design ....................................................................................................... 49 
Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 50 
Population ................................................................................................................................ 51 
Informed Consent ..................................................................................................................... 52 
Sampling Frame ....................................................................................................................... 52 
Confidentiality ......................................................................................................................... 53 
Geographic Location ................................................................................................................ 54 
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................................ 54 
Data Collection......................................................................................................................... 59 
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 60 
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................ 62 
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 62 
Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................................. 65 
Pilot Test Process ..................................................................................................................... 69 
 iv
Building Constructs/Questions ................................................................................................. 74 
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 79 
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 84 
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 86 
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 87 
Implications .............................................................................................................................. 90 
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 92 
References ............................................................................................................................... 94 
Appendix A: Colombian Media Affinity Survey ............................................................... 106 
Appendix B: Latent Variables ............................................................................................ 135 
Media Drivers......................................................................................................................... 135 
Awareness .............................................................................................................................. 136 
Consideration ......................................................................................................................... 140 
Buy ......................................................................................................................................... 143 
Loyalty ................................................................................................................................... 147 
Engagement ............................................................................................................................ 151 
Appendix C: Distribution of Frequencies .......................................................................... 156 
v
List of Tables 
Table 1 Population of the Colombian cities selected for the survey ........................................ 22 
Table 2 Operationalization of age clusters in the Colombian market ..................................... 51 
Table 3 Colombian socioeconomic statuses ............................................................................. 51 
Table 4 Age category and gender for the Colombian population ............................................ 53 
Table 5 Data table layout from Omnicom Media Group ......................................................... 58 
Table 6 High-level research design: constructs and variables ................................................ 59 
Table 7 Equations of the latent factors .................................................................................... 61 
Table 8 Representative sample by socioeconomic stratum ...................................................... 65 
Table 9 Survey participants by city .......................................................................................... 65 
Table 10 Survey participants by gender .................................................................................. 66 
Table 11 Survey participants by age segments ........................................................................ 67 
Table 12 Survey participants by socioeconomic status ............................................................ 67 
Table 13 Survey participants by occupation ............................................................................ 68 
Table 14 Survey participants by educational level .................................................................. 68 
Table 15 Example frequency distribution for the variable A3 ................................................. 75 
Table 16 Example of frequency distribution for dummy variables .......................................... 77 
Table 17 Results for hypothesis H1 .......................................................................................... 79 
Table 18 Results for hypotheses H2 to H5 ............................................................................... 80 
Table 19 Results for hypothesis H6, different consumer groups .............................................. 81 
Table 20 Results for hypothesis H7 .......................................................................................... 82 
Table 21 Mean difference test. Hypothesis to test Ho: Media 1 = Media 2 ............................ 83 
Table B1 Media drivers’ explained variance ......................................................................... 135 
Table B2 A1’s explained variance ......................................................................................... 136 
Table B3 A2’s explained variance ......................................................................................... 137 
1vi
Table B4 A3’s explained variance ......................................................................................... 138 
Table B5 Awareness’ explained variance .............................................................................. 139 
Table B6 C1’s explained variance ......................................................................................... 140 
Table B7 C3’s explained variance ......................................................................................... 141 
Table B8 Consideration’s explained variance ....................................................................... 142 
Table B9 B1’s explained variance ......................................................................................... 143 
Table B10 B2’s explained variance ....................................................................................... 144 
Table B11 B3’s explained variance ....................................................................................... 145 
Table B12 Buy intent’s explained variance ............................................................................ 146 
Table B13 L1’s explained variance........................................................................................ 147 
Table B14 L2’s explained variance........................................................................................ 148 
Table B15 L3’s explained variance........................................................................................ 149 
Table B16 Loyalty’s explained variance ................................................................................ 150 
Table B17 E1’s explained variance ....................................................................................... 151 
Table B18 E2’s explained variance ....................................................................................... 152 
Table B19 E3’s explained variance ....................................................................................... 154 
Table B20 Engagement’s explained variance ........................................................................ 155 
Table C1 Mass consumption goods ....................................................................................... 156 
Table C2 Durable goods ........................................................................................................ 160 
Table C3 Internet hours ......................................................................................................... 163 
Table C4 Internet use ............................................................................................................. 165 
Table C5 Purchase factors for alcoholic beverages .............................................................. 167 
Table C6 Purchase factors for food ....................................................................................... 168 
Table C7 Purchase factors for beverages .............................................................................. 169 
Table C8 Purchase factors for personal care ........................................................................ 170 
vii
Table C9 Purchase factors for home care ............................................................................. 171 
Table C10 Purchase factors for perfumes .............................................................................. 172 
Table C11 Purchase factors for electronics/computers ......................................................... 173 
Table C12 Purchase factors for furniture/appliances ............................................................ 174 
Table C13 Purchase factors for clothes ................................................................................. 175 
Table C14 Purchase factors for cars/motorcycles ................................................................. 176 
Table C15 Frequency distribution for cities and SES ............................................................ 178 
Table C16 Frequency distribution for gender ........................................................................ 178 
Table C17 Frequency distribution for age groups ................................................................. 178 
Table C18 Frequency distribution for SES ............................................................................ 178 
Table C19 Frequency distribution for main activities ........................................................... 179 
Table C20 Frequency distribution for cities .......................................................................... 179 
Table C21 Frequency distribution for educational achievement ........................................... 179 
viii
List of Figures 
Figure 1. The consumer decision journey .................................................................................. 3 
Figure 2. The loyalty loop ......................................................................................................... 3 
Figure 3. Forrester’s model for measuring the engagement of brand advocates ....................... 5 
Figure 4. McKinsey consumer decision journey ....................................................................... 5 
Figure 5. Modern purchase funnel ............................................................................................. 6 
Figure 6. New product adoption model ..................................................................................... 7 
Figure 7. Commercial model for fast-moving consumer goods companies. ........................... 20 
Figure 8. Model of brand loyalty ............................................................................................. 29 
Figure 9. The social engagement matrix .................................................................................. 33 
Figure 10. Schematic design of the research: High-level view. .............................................. 48 
Figure B1. Media Drivers Segmentation ............................................................................... 135 
Figure B2. A1 Segmentation.................................................................................................. 136 
Figure B3. A2 Segmentation.................................................................................................. 137 
Figure B4. A3 Segmentation.................................................................................................. 138 
Figure B5. Awareness Segmentation ..................................................................................... 139 
Figure B6. C1 Segmentation .................................................................................................. 140 
Figure B7. C3 Segmentation .................................................................................................. 141 
Figure B8. Consideration Segmentation ................................................................................ 142 
Figure B9. B1 Segmentation .................................................................................................. 143 
Figure B10. B2 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 144 
Figure B11. B3 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 145 
Figure B 12. Buy Segmentation ............................................................................................. 146 
Figure B13. L1 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 147 
Figure B14. L2 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 148 
ix
Figure B15. L3 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 149 
Figure B16. Loyalty Segmentation ......................................................................................... 150 
Figure B17. E1 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 152 
Figure B18. E2 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 153 
Figure B19. E3 Segmentation ................................................................................................ 154 
Figure B20. Engagement Segmentation ................................................................................. 155 
Chapter 1: Introduction 
Background of the Problem 
In the digital era, Internet influence and the adoption of social networks such as 
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram as a part of daily life for young, socially emergent 
consumers known as a Millennials and Post-millennials, suggest that the traditional model 
through which mass consumption brands relate to their consumers should be subject to 
review. Today, young, socially emergent consumers have multiple communication channels 
at their disposal, with their levels of connectivity and dependence on social networks that 
almost mirrors their need for food and sustenance, seeing this digital tribe of connectivity 
satisfying the important human need of socializing and belonging to a community. 
Nowadays, marketers are more focused on interacting as frequently as possible with 
their customers, and improving their understanding of how such interactions help sprout new 
customer relationships, while preserving brand loyalty in others. The basic marketing 
paradigm has shifted its focus from a mere exchange of goods and services, to building 
relationships on top of providing those goods and services (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The 
introduction of several new channels and the media strategies that followed has made this 
transition possible and thus customer-firm interaction has now become the norm. This is also 
due to the considerable cost differences between traditional marketing channels and 
electronic media (Reinartz, Thomas, and Kumar, 2005).  Low cost and enhanced interactivity 
enable enterprises to effectively communicate with their customers via digital media 
(Deighton and Barwise, 2000; Peppers and Rogers, 1993). 
As suggested by Fournier (1998), marketers are increasingly bringing brands closer to 
consumers’ everyday lives. A brand is described as an image, name or an identity that 
differentiates a product from others also present in a market (Keller, 1993). As stated by 
2 
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), customers are now being viewed as co-creators of brand 
value, and their role in establishing brand identity has gained importance. Digital media 
enables customers to better interact with information and participate by offering their 
opinions and starting trends, besides obtaining help and support from brand owners. Digital 
interactivity also enables customers to engage with brands in more meaningful ways. 
In turn, the digital spectrum has changed the way potential customers interact with 
brands. Internet has introduced new technologies that have upended traditional marketing 
tactics (Court, Elzinga, Mulder, and Vetvik, 2009). In today’s digital world, customers 
connect with brands in multiple ways introduced by new media channels. This level of 
interaction is beyond the control of both product manufacturer and retailer, and enables 
customers to compare a wide range of similar products, allowing them to decide about their 
final purchase (Court et al., 2009). 
Brand Funnel Models – derived from St. Elmo Lewis funnel metaphor – have been 
frequently used by marketers to highlight several touch points. Customers tend to look for a 
brand at the wide end of the funnel, with myriads of brands on their mind before narrowing 
their choice. Businesses have conventionally used paid media to create awareness about their 
brand and create purchase interest. The funnel metaphor, as illustrated in Figure 1, fails to 
explain the unstable nature of consumer interaction (Court et al., 2009). 
According to the funnel analogy, customers methodically narrow down their initial 
preferences while weighing and comparing their options, before deciding on their final 
product. Then comes the post-sale period in which customers determine the reliability of a 
brand, and the possibility of buying the same brand again. Marketers promote or “push” the 
product during every phase of the funnel process to influence a customer’s decision as shown 
in Figure 1 (Court et al., 2009). 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. The consumer decision journey. Adapted from “The consumer decision journey” by 
Court et al., 2009. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing- 
and-sales/our-insights/the-consumer-decision-journey 
 
 
 
Figure 2. The loyalty loop. Adapted from “The consumer decision journey” by Court et al., 
2009. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our- 
insights/the-consumer-decision-journey 
 
Studies suggest that customers consistently subtract and add brands to and from a 
group during the evaluations phase, instead of using a methodical approach of narrowing 
down their choices. At the post purchase stage, consumers often share their experiences with 
the chosen brands online, as illustrated in Figure 2. 
 
4 
 
 
 
 
Marketers frequently highlight the consider and buy phases, consistently allocating 
more resources than required to establish awareness through advertisements and promotions. 
However, Internet has increased the importance of the evaluate and advocate stages for 
marketing brands. Investments that aid consumers with the evaluation process and then help 
spread positive recommendations and reviews have become important tools for building 
awareness and increasing sales. Marketers predict that, if a consumer enjoys a good 
experience with a brand, the probability he or she will choose to purchase the same brand 
again will be high, thus completely bypassing the evaluation stage (Edelman, 2010b). 
In contrast to the simplicity of the funnel model, contemporary research suggests that 
decision-making processes of today’s consumers is more circular and progressive. There are 
four main areas where marketers can make or break their sale. These include preliminary 
consideration, evaluation of a product, purchase and finally post-purchase where consumers 
provide feedback about their experience with the product (Court, Elzinga, Mulder, and 
Vetvik, 2009). Internet search engines and social networks have opened a new and more 
complex channel for brand product exposure (Forrester, 2007; Court et al., 2009), thus 
leading major marketing consultant agencies to propose and revise more sophisticated 
models, that attempt to describe the consumers’ decision-making processes. Forrester’s 
model (2007), displayed in Figure 3, described an intricate customer journey with decisions 
primarily based on reviews and recommendations of peers, friends and other user-generated 
feedback. 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Forrester’s model for measuring the engagement of brand advocates. Adapted from 
“Measuring the total economic impact of customer engagement” by Forrester, 2007, p. 205. 
Court et al. (2009) developed a similar model called the McKinsey customer 
decision journey, as shown in Figure 4. 
 
 
Figure 4. McKinsey consumer decision journey. Adapted from “The consumer decision 
journey” by Court et al., 2009. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business- 
functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-consumer-decision-journey 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
Court et al. (2009) then expanded upon Forrester’s model (2007) by proposing the 
incorporation of a purchasing loop into the original process (see Figure 5). 
 
 
Figure 5. Modern purchase funnel. Adapted from “Marketing Made Simple”, by Lancaster 
and Reynolds, 2003, p. 25. 
In turn, consumer culture theory (CCT) describes how customers interpret symbolic 
meanings embedded in brands and their promotions within their personal identities and 
achievements (Ruggiero, 2000). According to CCT, the marketplace provides consumers 
with an assorted and varied platform from where they can build both their individual and 
collective identities. Variables related to consumer attitude highlight five types of values in 
the context of consumption. These are: (a) conformity, (b) security, (c) tradition, (d) self- 
direction, and (e) stimulation. Consumers’ new product adoption (NPA) is negatively or 
positively influenced by their consumption behaviors and their effects may vary between 
demographics. These relationships are depicted in Figure 6. 
 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. New product adoption model adapted from “A new product adoption model with 
price, advertising, and uncertainty” by Kalish, S, 1985, p. 1574. 
Conformity highlights discipline and self-restraint in daily interactions, while 
promoting qualities such as obedience, politeness and respect for one’s elders (Schwartz, 
Snidman and Kagan, 1992). Individuals who acknowledge conformity are likely to make 
decisions that obey their immediate social setting. On the other hand, people lacking those 
values of are more likely to focus on their individual gain (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel, 
1989). In the context of consumption, conformity is linked with a customer’s information 
gathering process on a new product or service (Rogers, 1995). 
Consumers with high levels of conformity are more likely to depend on 
recommendations from family and friends on a product to effectively blend into their social 
setting, being less likely to respond to impersonal promotions (Clark and Staunton, 1989). 
Meanwhile, Internet surfers use search engines on a practically daily basis, due to their 
capacity to receive millions of queries in a single day and return billions of results against 
those queries. Given those astonishing numbers, Search Engine Marketing has become a vital 
 
8 
 
 
 
 
source of promotion for e-retailers. Search engine results pages (SERPs), along with text- 
based advertisements, present relevant results to an individual’s line of inquiry. These types 
of advertisements are also referred to as keyword advertisements or sponsored advertisements 
(Jansen and Mullen, 2008). 
Digital channels provide the necessary tools for customizations. By customizing their 
channel and content preferences, marketers can employ digital channels to build and shape 
brand communication. As suggested by Simonson (2005), marketers can create personalized 
brand communications based on customer preferences and behaviors. Categorizing customers 
according to their behavior is hence vital. 
The Internet World Stats Study (Internet World Research Foundation [IWRF], 2014) 
found the Internet penetration rate in Latin America to be at 42.9%. In Colombia, penetration 
reached 59.5%, implying a population of more than 13 million active users, aged 15 or older. 
Internet access is essential today, since access plays a large role on daily living. Internet users 
are online an average of three hours per day, although the average decreases to one hour a 
day when focusing on Internet use in places offering increased levels of social interaction, 
like home and work. Being online has become embedded into individual lifestyles. 
Whilst online, older people tend to limit their Internet use to checking their e-mail 
accounts and finding information via search engines or websites. Young people are more 
versatile; after checking their e-mail accounts, they tend to prefer multimedia activities like 
listening to music, watching videos, downloading files, and socializing. Young people that 
were born either between 1981-1995 or 1996 to 2005, respectively called millennials or 
generation Y, and post-millennials or generation Z, tend to be more aware of advertising and 
social network interactions because their age groups perceives ads easily. They tend to find 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
and prefer more attractive and dynamic advertising formats like e-video, over static formats 
such as magazines or physical newspapers (Omnicom Media Group, 2014). 
Statement of the Problem 
 
For more than a century, consumer goods companies have based their 
communication, sales and relationship strategies with their active and potential consumers, 
solely on the brand funnel model. Said model states that awareness, consideration, buy 
loyalty and engagement to a brand can be achieved via the highest possible number of 
communicational stimuli that a consumer receives, throughout the different consumption life 
cycles of products/services (Court et al., 2009; Edwards, 2011). 
The intensive use of Internet, social networks, and the wide range of mass media 
currently available, have affected how brands establish connections with their consumers in a 
transcendental manner. Every day, billions of people turn to the Internet for entertainment 
and to engage or interact on social networks with friends. Other people turn to the Internet to 
conduct research, purchase products or services, or as a point of sale (e-commerce). 
Since 2010, a significant percentage of searching, consulting, and sharing activities 
with others via social networks has been conducted through mobile devices, like cell phones 
and tablets using wireless access. It is impossible to ignore that Internet is the most 
significant development and factor of change in our global society, and that includes the 
world of marketing, branding and sales, and thus the process of creating consumer loyalty or 
a fan base. One example of the above can be found in that “…accessibility, reach, and 
transparency of the Internet has extended consumers’ options to gather information and 
engage in WOM” (Henning-Thurau et al., 2004, as cited in Hutter, Hautz, Dennhardt, and 
Füller, 2013, p. 345). 
 
10 
 
 
 
 
In turn, empowered by the Internet and search engines, as well as better quantitative 
skills, consumers have become better informed and more discerning (Rodriguez, 2014). 
Consumer review sites and the top ten social networks provide a platform in which people’s 
opinions and experiences, both good and bad, can be shared with millions of potential 
consumers worldwide. These consumer reviews and product or service ratings are competing 
for a share of space in the mind of consumers at any moment. This phenomenon is not only 
evident in developed economies: in emerging economies, a social explosion brought on by 
improvements in socio-economic conditions that enabled rapid Internet access growth, this 
has enabled citizens to use social networks and all other forms of digital interaction. 
This disruption has forced companies to understand better the impact of these new 
channels on their customers’ purchase decisions and brand perception (Hutter, et al., 2013), 
as well as reviewing the returns on their investment in these new channels (Weinberg and 
Pehlivan, 2011). Also, companies are attempting to grasp the behaviors of younger 
consumers, especially Millennials, who are more empowered than their predecessors 
(Rodriguez, 2014), while keeping in mind the particularities of consumers in emerging 
economies. 
Purpose of the Study 
 
The purpose of the current study is to assess the impact of social networks on the 
relationships behind the traditional funnel model, considering that: (a) the digital era 
consumer is different from the consumer during the pre-Internet era; (b) traditional mass 
media has continued to lose influence in recent years; and (c) social digital networks have 
become increasingly central in the daily lives of consumers, creating a more discerning and 
better informed consumer (Balan, 2014; Khoo, 2014). 
 
11 
 
 
 
 
For such goal, the impact of social networks on brand engagement and purchase 
decisions was assessed, as well as their impact on the various stages of the brand funnel 
model (awareness, familiarity, consideration, purchase, and loyalty), recommendations and 
word-of-mouth (WOM) advertising, through a structural equation model (SEM) including the 
five stages of the brand funnel model. Special focus was put on millennial consumers in 
developing countries, as these are a subgroup whose study is required due to market size and 
affinity with social networks. 
Significance of the Problem 
 
In Colombia, companies and the State projected to invest more than 2.8 billion dollars 
on media in 2015 (Omnicom Media, 2014). During the last five years, advertising 
investments have grown by 7% on average, and are projected to show an annual sustained 
growth of 8% between 2012 and 2020 (Omnicom Media, 2014). Fast-moving consumer 
goods companies represent 70% of this investment. 
Media agencies managing these resources usually seek opportunities to ensure their 
brands’ increased visibility through traditional mass media like national TV, cable TV, 
newspapers, magazines, billboards, radio, and more recently, digital media. Not sources that 
explain the behavior of consumers in the digital age who are socially emergent in the context 
of Latin American countries and worldwide. The theories and models developed until now 
focused on socially developed consumers’ countries, with some references to Asia and 
Africa. Therefore, it is pertinent to delve further into the media consumption habits of 
consumers who were born in the digital age, who are socially emerging and whose 
interactions with brands could be different to consumers of other generations in Latin 
America. 
 
12 
 
 
 
 
Within the close consumer-brand connection, a kind of social contract is identifiable 
that determines the existence of uses and gratification theories, explained in terms of 
preferred media, consumer psychological needs, and the role that the media play in this 
sociocultural process. Theories of adoption of new products, strengthening of weak ties, and 
media dependency complement the explanation of consumer behaviors. 
The latter made its appearance in Colombia within the last decade, but its role in 
marketing has only gained prominence during the last six years. Despite its late start, the 
growth of digital media marketing has been phenomenal, going from 1% in 2007 to 7% in 
2012, with a projected growth of more than 15% by 2017 (Omnicom Media, 2014). 
Management at consumer goods companies support its growth, marketing strategies, and 
concepts like awareness, consideration, purchase, loyalty and re-purchase of products from 
the brand funnel metaphor. 
Academics and experts with quantifiable results have developed the majority of 
existing metrics used in measuring the effectiveness of a brand investment (ROI). However, 
there is no simulation model in which scenarios can be tested as to whether consumers’ 
behaviors in different stages of the new brand funnel change in relation to niche advertising 
that targets consumers from specific socioeconomic levels, or age groups and products type. 
The findings, recommendations, and models proposed by this research would directly benefit 
the academic community in Colombia and Latin America, and to the business CEOs, 
marketing and sales managers. 
Nature of the Study 
 
The current research follows a quantitative nature. Conversely, a quantitative 
correlational technique was employed. Specifically, structural equation modelling (SEM) was 
the statistical approach employed to answer the research questions of the current study. This 
 
13 
 
 
 
 
method provides the opportunity to test the hypothesized model in a simultaneous analysis of 
the entire system of variables to determine the parameter estimates and model fit. 
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was selected due to its ability to provide a 
sensible result for the estimation of the probabilities related to the model. A structural 
equation model was built to compile a state-transition cyclic population related to the 
consumption and the motivation of the consumer. The simulation model was based on the 
modern funnel analogy described by Court et al. (2009). 
A survey was used on a descriptive section of the Colombian population, to update 
the previously identified evidence. Both evidence sources were integrated into a structural 
equation model for analysis, to evaluate different investment strategies and their effect on 
consumer behavior, as well as creating consumer behaviors paths from data. 
It can be stated the current research follows an explanatory nature, as it follows the 
definition laid out by Gray (2013) for that type of studies, namely: 
An explanatory study sets out to explain and account for the descriptive information. 
So, while descriptive studies may ask ‘what’ kinds of questions, explanatory studies 
seek to ask ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions (…) some studies can also be correlative in 
nature, with the emphasis on discovering causal relationships between variables (p. 
36). 
In turn, the epistemological approach followed by the study can be defined as 
objectivist, which states that: 
Reality exists independently of consciousness – in other words, there is an objective 
reality ‘out there’. So, research is about discovering this objective truth. In doing this, 
researchers should strive not to include their own feelings and values. Objectivism, 
however, does not entail the rejection of subjectivity: we can study peoples’ 
 
14 
 
 
 
 
subjective views (their values, attitudes and beliefs) but we must do so objectively 
(Gray, 2013, p. 20). 
According to Gray (2013), such approach is closely related to the positivist 
perspective, which sees reality as something to be investigated by the researcher using a 
scientific inquiry. As the research follows a quantitative, correlational method, it can be 
stated it adheres to such perspective, as an orderly application of statistical techniques allows 
an objective, structured approach to a reality. 
Research Questions 
 
As this is a confirmatory study, the five stages of the modern funnel model (Court et 
al., 2009) were reviewed for methodological reasons; thereafter, the research questions for 
this investigation are listed. Research questions 6 and 7, and their respective hypotheses (H6 
and H7) were the focus of the research. 
The research questions for the current study were as follows: 
 
1. Does the level of advertising in all media drivers increase awareness for all types of 
consumers when they recognize a brand in particular? 
2. Have the options in the brand set considered by consumers at the time of buying a 
service or a product, already undergone a filter process that eliminated those brands 
that the consumer did not see or hear about in the media at any time in the past? 
3. Is purchasing a product in physical or virtual outlets directly related to brand 
knowledge, which gained through advertising influences on consumers by the media 
prior to the purchase? 
4. Are brand adoption and consumer loyalty as the first choice at the moment of 
purchasing, achieved with high levels of advertising through media drivers? 
 
15 
 
 
 
 
5. Do factors like word of mouth, interaction with the brand, and memorable experiences, 
affect consumer engagement at the moment of purchasing or repurchasing products, 
services, or both? 
6. How does the impact of media investment in brands differ according to consumer 
demographics (age and socioeconomic status) at each stage of the brand funnel? 
7. Can a high level of brand engagement lead consumers to consider buying a brand 
through a social network recommendation, despite never having seen any type of 
advertising about that brand? 
Hypotheses 
 
H1a: Higher levels of advertising in all media increase awareness among all types of 
consumers, when they recognize a brand in particular. 
H10: Higher levels of advertising in all media drivers do not increase awareness for all 
types of consumers, when they recognize a brand in particular. 
H2a: The set of brands to be considered by customers during purchase has undergone 
a filter process that eliminated those brands the consumer did not see or hear in media. 
H20: The set of brands to be considered by customers during purchase has not 
undergone a filter process that eliminated those brands the consumer did not see or 
hear in media. 
H3a: The materialization of purchased products in physical or virtual outlets is 
directly related to brand knowledge, achieved through advertising exposure. 
H30: The materialization of purchased products in physical or virtual outlets is not 
directly related to brand knowledge, achieved through advertising exposure. 
H4a: Brand adoption and consumer loyalty, are achieved with high levels of 
advertising consumer´s exposure. 
 
16 
 
 
 
 
H40: Brand adoption and consumer loyalty, are not achieved with high levels of 
advertising consumer´s exposure. 
H5a: Factors like word of mouth, interaction with the brands, and memorable 
experiences impact consumer engagement at the moment of purchasing and/or re- 
purchasing products or services. 
H50: Factors like word of mouth, interaction with the brand, and memorable 
experiences does not affect consumer´s engagement at the moment of purchasing 
and/or re-purchasing products or services. 
H6a: The impact of media investment in brands differ according to consumer’s 
demographic (age and socioeconomic status). 
H60: The impact of media investment in brands does not differ according to 
consumer’s demographic (age and socioeconomic status) at each stage of the brand 
funnel. 
H7a: High level of brands ‘engagement built through a social network 
recommendation, move consumers buy decision, despite having never seen in 
traditional media any type of advertising. 
H70: High level of brands ‘engagement built through a social network 
recommendation, does not move consumers buy decision, despite having never seen in 
traditional media any type of advertising. 
Theoretical Framework 
 
One of the main theoretical foundations for the current study lies on the hierarchy of 
effects theory (Palda, 1966). According to this, differences exist in the advertising effect 
made through different media used to influence the purchasing of products and services based 
on different age ranges or socioeconomic levels or both. The central idea is that each 
 
17 
 
 
 
 
communication exposure may move the consumer forward through a hierarchical sequence of 
events, from cognition, in other words, thinking (awareness and consideration), to affect or 
feeling (liking and preference), and ultimately, to conation or doing (purchase intent and 
purchase). Coined “hierarchy of effects” (HOE) by Palda (1966), these concepts were 
incorporated to general models of consumer behavior (Sheth, 1968) and became widely used 
in their different variations (Vakratas D., Ambler, T., 1996). As a recent example, Keller and 
Lehmann (2006) proposed five aspects of customer-based brand equity: Awareness, 
associations, attitude, attachment and action. 
The other main theory serving as support is the consumer culture theory. On this, 
advice provided by Miller (1995) to anthropologists to study consumption in combination 
with production aided several modifications in consumer behavior studies that led to new 
avenues of research. Several terms like postmodern, humanistic, interpretive and naturalistic 
have been incorporated since the 80s to define the new methodology. A new term “consumer 
culture theory” that comprehensively describes this multifaceted approach finally surfaced in 
2005 and was coined by Arnould and Thompson (as cited in Joy and Li, 2012). 
Consumer culture theory is a way to analyze consumption apart from the existing 
frameworks or psychology and economics. It provides a distributed view of cultural meaning 
(Hannerz, 1992), one created, sustained, and transformed by larger social and cultural forces 
such as myths, narratives, and ideologies. “Free from conventional notions of social patterns, 
CCT, however, arises from specific socio-economic frameworks with the influence of market 
capitalism and globalization thoroughly visible in all CCT related investigations” (Arnould 
and Thompson, 2005, p. 230). 
The concepts researched by CCT shift through the process-oriented classes of 
disposition, consumption and acquisition in a much similar way that the hypothetical 
 
18 
 
 
 
 
boundaries of market research surpass 4Ps framework. In other words, CCT has innovated 
consumer behavior knowledge by highlighting various sociocultural factors and platforms 
linked to: (a) mass-mediated marketplace ideologies, (b) customer identity projects, (c) socio- 
historic modelling of consumption, and (d) marketplace traditions. 
Definition of Terms 
 
Digital channels are communication paths that include digital signals only. All voice 
and video signals must be converted from analogue to digital in order to be carried over a 
digital channel (Kruger, 2001). 
Brand purchase funnel is a model used to describe the customer’s journey from the 
moment of first contact with the brand to the ultimate goal of a purchase in theoretical terms. 
This model is useful in the sense that it provides a way to comprehend and track the mind-set 
of a consumer during the sale process (Edelman, 2010a). 
Brand awareness is the likelihood that consumers will recognize the existence and 
availability of a company’s product or service. Creating brand awareness is one of the key 
steps in promoting a product (Kotler, 2000). 
Brand loyalty is the extent of the loyalty of consumers to a brand, expressed through 
their repeat purchases, irrespective of the marketing pressure generated by the competing 
brands (Aaker, Dumer and Day, 1997). 
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) products are products that are frequently 
purchased due to being essential or non-essential goods such as food, toiletries, soft drinks, 
and disposable diapers (Omnicom Media Group, 2014). 
Hierarchy of effects (HOE) is a hierarchical representation of how advertising 
influences a consumer’s decision to purchase or not purchase a product or service over time. 
The hierarchy of effects theory is used to set up a structured series of advertising message 
 
19 
 
 
 
 
objectives for a product, with the goal of building upon each successive objective until a sale 
is ultimately made. The objectives of a campaign are, in order of delivery, awareness, 
knowledge, liking, preference, conviction, and purchase (Palda, 1966). 
Consumer culture theory is a marketing school of thought interested in 
 
studying consumption choices and behaviors from a social and cultural point of view, as 
opposed to an economic or psychological point of view (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). 
It does not offer a grand unifying theory but “refers to a family of theoretical 
perspectives that address the dynamic relationships between consumer actions, the 
marketplace, and cultural meanings” (Arnould and Thompson, 2005, p. 872). Consumer 
culture is viewed as a “social arrangement in which the relations between live culture and 
social resources, between meaningful ways of life and the symbolic and material resources on 
which they depend, are mediated through markets” (Arnould and Thompson, 2006, p. 882). 
Uses and gratification (UGT) theory is an approach to understanding why and how 
people actively seek out specific media to satisfy specific needs. Wandering from other media 
philosophies that focus on “what do media do to people”, the UGT theory concentrates on 
questions like “what do people with media” (Ruggiero, 2000, p. 37). 
Paid or bought media are media where there is investment in visitors, reach, or 
conversions through search, display ad networks or affiliate marketing. Offline traditional 
media like print and TV advertising and direct mail remain important, accounting for most 
spending on paid media (Stephen and Galak, 2012). 
Media owned is referred to owned media by the brand. This includes blogs, websites, 
apps and social media content, retail stores (Yu, 2012). 
New product adoption (NPA) theory is the new product adoption process and 
includes the set of mental steps customers go through beginning with first becoming aware of 
 
20 
 
 
 
 
the new product’s existence, and ending with the decision to adopt the product for continued 
and regular use. The process is a type of consumer decision-making model. The steps in the 
NPA theory consist of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption (Moore and 
Benbasat, 1991). 
Web 2.0 is a collective term for certain applications on the Internet and the World 
Wide Web, including blogs, wikis, video sharing services, and social media websites such as 
Facebook and Myspace, which focus on interactive sharing and participatory collaboration 
rather than simple content delivery (O’Reilly, 2004). 
Assumptions 
 
An underlying assumption of the research is that every consumer responds in the 
same way to advertising media that aims to generate remembrance, consideration, purchase 
intention, and brand adoption as the first option at the exact moment of purchase, and to 
establish loyalty and engagement to this brand. Also, given the complexity of commercial 
models, the research aimed to measure how media investment variables affect company sales. 
 
 
Figure 7. Commercial model for fast-moving consumer goods companies. 
 
Other variables of the commercial model for fast moving consumer goods companies, 
such as sales base, distribution, exhibition, price, and competition, are not taken into account 
during this research. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it was assumed that these 
variables remain constant. 
 
21 
 
 
 
 
Limitations 
 
The instrument was deployed on a sample of 800 Colombian consumers from 
different age groups: 14-19 years, 19-24 years, 25-29 years, 30-34 years, 35-39 years, 40-45 
years, and over 45 years. The rationale for this segmentation is to test the media consumption 
behaviors of post-millennials (born 1996-2000, also called generation Z), millennials (born 
between 1981 and 1995, also called generation Y) and pre-millennials (born among 1964- 
1980, also called generation X). 
Therefore, the final sample did not include people with ages outside those age bands, 
while attempting to give greater emphasis to Millennials in the sample. In turn, data was 
gathered once, thus turning the research into a cross-sectional study. Finally, the emphasis of 
the study was FMCG products. 
Delimitations 
 
This study was focused on the results that are extracted from a survey questionnaire 
used to measure and catalogue media consumption habits among Colombian consumers. The 
survey was conducted in the four main cities in the nation, on a total sample of 800 
respondents. The survey was also designed to consider the following theories: hierarchy of 
effects (brand funnel models), consumer culture theories, and uses and gratifications theories. 
Key variables were socioeconomic level, age, media drivers, and product categories. 
The sample was limited to urban Colombian consumers, belonging to the four largest 
Colombian cities. This was done in order to ensure an accurate representation of all 
Colombian regions, their consumers and tastes. As shown in Table 1, these four cities also 
comprise almost 30% of the Colombian population, while being net recipients of internal 
migrants. This confers them diversity in their consumers. 
 
22 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 
 
Population of the Colombian cities selected for the survey 
 
City Population % of Colombian   population   
Bogota 7’963,379 16.37 % 
Medellin 2’486,723 5.10 % 
Cali 2’394,925 4.91 % 
Barranquilla 1’223.686 2.51 % 
TOTAL 14’085,265 28.89 % 
Source: DANE (2016) 
 
Summary 
 
Customers are not mere inert receivers in the marketing exchange practices. Today, 
customers are actively participating in suggesting product design and creating marketing 
campaigns (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, and Kates, 2007). As opposed to the conventional Web 
1.0, Web 2.0 has catapulted consumer – business interaction to a completely new level, and it 
has empowered consumers to dictate content, nature and extent of marketing exchanges. 
According to Garretson (2008) “Consumers increasingly use digital media not just to research 
products and services, but to engage the companies they buy from, as well as other  
consumers who may have valuable insights” (p. 12). According to Hanna, Rohm, and 
Critenden (2011) rapid developments occurring within the digital marketing spectrum have 
redefined marketing strategies and social media. According to Hansen, Shneiderman, and 
Smith (2010) technologies associated with social media have enabled brand new ways of 
digital interaction. This led Harris (2009) to comment on the plethora of social networking 
tools available on the Internet, which enable a consumer to perform a variety of activities like 
sharing pictures, podcasts, videos and wikis and so forth. Anderson and Wolff (2010) stressed 
upon the importance of portable devices for accessing these tools. Karpinski (2005) defined 
 
23 
 
 
 
 
customers of media as organized, intelligent individuals who are trusting of the opinions of 
their peers. 
Hansen et al. (2011) brought up that a core reason why “bottom-up marketing” takes 
places is because “billions of people create trillions of connections through social media each 
day” (p. 3). Over the course of time, these connections transform into relationships that lead 
to the creation of a huge social network of consumers where they can dictate their product 
choices to marketers.  According to Metcalfe’s law, the value of a social network increases in 
proportion to the square of its connections. Clue Train Manifesto, which provided one of the 
earliest insights into the newly developed social media ecosystem, revealed that these 
markets are not about promotional messages but rather conversations among individuals 
(Levine, Locke, Searle, and Weinberger, 2000). These conversations consist of product 
discussions, which are constantly being marketed to other individuals present in a specific 
social circle. It is vital to express opinion, such is the nature of these dynamic social media 
platforms and silence is not an option. In short, digital marketing is about engaging customers 
through conversations and blends the ingredients of traditional and contemporary marketing 
techniques (Hanna et al., 2011). 
A staggering 80% of the customer experience transitional economies and emerging 
consumer markets to advance the comprehension of consumer behavior and, therefore, 
advance consumer research; it is important to study frameworks and theories developed in the 
western culture in the context of emerging consumer markets (ECMs) (Steenkamp and 
Burgess, 2002). Although many theories of consumer behavior have been fashioned by 
borrowing eclectically across behavioral sciences (Ward and Robertson, 1973), consumer 
researchers have been less eclectic when selecting populations on which to test their theories. 
Much of the currently existing information has been gathered from experimental researches 
 
24 
 
 
 
 
of customers in countries like the USA. Another vital measure to advance consumer research 
requires legitimacy of frameworks and theories and their scope of application to be studied in 
emerging economies (Bagozzi, 1994; Douglas and Craig, 1997; Lee and Green, 1991; Parker 
and Tavassoli, 2000). It is in this vein that Monroe (1993), urged consumer behavior 
researchers “to move beyond the relative security of our own backyards and investigate 
issues relative to consumption on an international basis” (p. v). 
 
Young adults and teens are usually thought of as an elusive market sector. This is 
primarily because marketers consider this demographic to be one segment instead of several 
small segments. Millennials, in this context, are a diverse demographic because they 
incorporate traits from several segments and have unique content consumption tendencies 
(Geraci, 2004). 
The concerns faced by teenagers and young adults about a brand are primarily its 
functional aspects and value. These demographic groups seek a good quality product that is 
accessible, trending and at a fair price point. Teenagers associated image with quality and is 
important once the functional aspects of a product are confirmed. Many brands try to project 
a cool image to appeal to this demographic, as well as delivering high quality and 
functionality (Geraci, 2004). 
 
25 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2:  Review of the Literature 
 
Given the appearance of information technologies as a significant channel in 
marketing, the validity and reliability of traditional purchase models have been put into 
question. However, analyses developed so far have been focused on consumers from 
economically and socially developed countries, with some references to Asia and Africa. 
Therefore, it is pertinent to delve further into the media consumption habits of Latin 
American consumers who were born in the digital age, who are socially emerging and whose 
interactions with brands could be different to consumers of other generations in the region. 
In this chapter, a deep analysis will be presented on how the development process of 
awareness, consideration, purchase, loyalty and engagement towards brands, better known as 
the modern brand funnel, has progressed towards a more cyclical, circular, and dynamic 
process in the consumer decision journey. 
Adopting innovation and network autocorrelation 
 
According to Rogers (2003) individual’s decision to take up (or not) an invention is 
not an immediate decision but a steady process that gradually occurs over a passage of time 
and covers several other actions. Rogers (2003) highlighted five successive levels in 
innovation adoption: (a) The knowledge level, where an individual gathers information about 
an innovation; (b) The persuasion level, where the individual establishes an opinion about an 
innovation; (c) The decision level, where the individual accepts or rejects an innovation; (d) 
The implementation level, where a new idea is executed; and finally (e) The confirmation 
level, where decisions are cemented. 
The perception of these attributes affects individuals’ decisions to adopt an innovation 
or not. Consumers’ characteristics do affect the way their perceptions of innovations (and 
their attributes) are translated into actual adoption behavior (Rogers, 2003). In their decision 
 
26 
 
 
 
 
to accept a new idea, adopters’ innovativeness is seen as playing an important role. Rogers 
defines innovativeness as the relative time of adoption He categorized innovation adopters 
into groups in terms of the innovativeness of adopters: (a) innovators, who are venturesome; 
(b) early adopters, who are role models for many members of a social system; (c) the early 
majority, who are thoughtful; (d) the late majority, who are skeptical; and (e) laggards, who 
are traditional. Studies prove that several vital differences are present among the adopter 
groups in context of communication behavior, socioeconomic status and personality. 
Socialization theory maintains that peer classes are accountable for establishing 
behavioral homogeneity in a group (Homans, 1974; Olson, 1971). The assertion is that young 
adults being affected by their peers will imitate the peer’s attitude, therefore discovering 
similarities with their friends in the process. 
A completely opposite approach to this paradigm would be one in which the network 
is perceived as dynamic but its variables are considered static, for instance, studies on 
friendships formation (Moody, 2002). Studies on friendships and similarities among friends 
are described through selection. A primary cause for this, according to psychologists, is 
“homophily” – a process through which young adults seek likeminded individuals 
(McPherson, 2001). The argument can be protracted to encompass casual forms of social 
settings; such as opportunities to interact with other individuals (Pattison and Robins, 2002).  
Theories of Low-Level and Variable Audience Activity 
Ruggiero (2000) stated the main variables affecting audience activity are: (a) time 
based relations (post exposure and expectation of an activity), (b) degree of involvement 
(friendship, ambient noise), and (c) habitual use (slight stimulation) point to a less active 
audience than previously believed. Time relations theory proposed that viewers are selective 
and goal focused differently at different times during the pre and post-media exposure 
 
27 
 
 
 
 
processes (Levy and Windahl, 1984). Lemish (1985, as cited in Ruggiero, 2000), for instance, 
discovered that college students built their schedules around specific TV shows, established 
program-focused groups and debated the content with other individuals. 
Degree of involvement states that the inspiration to incorporate the use of mass media 
is also influenced by how a person relies on it, and to what extent it satisfies his or her need 
(Lichtenstein and Rosenfeld, 1983). Rayburn and Palmgreen (1982, as cited in Ruggiero, 
2000) created an expectancy framework that effectively forecasts satisfaction anticipated 
from watching television news. In their research, these authors united expectancy value 
theory with uses and gratifications to establish an expected value model for sought 
gratifications sought and obtained gratifications (Ruggiero, 2000). 
Rubin (1984) proposed that habitual viewing involved regular use of television for 
distraction purposes on the other hand; instrumental viewing projects a more goal-driven 
need to watch television to gather news or information.  Rubin (1984, as cited in Ruggiero, 
2000) warned that both habitual and instrumental use of media is not separate notions but, in 
fact, interconnected. Just like an audience’ activity can vary, people may use media either 
instrumentally or habitually depending on their circumstances. 
Gratification and motivation have become even more important variables for audience 
assessment as rapidly involving technologies present individuals with plethora of media 
choices. The keen interest displayed by scholars in audience that remains online is 
particularly interesting because of the characteristics of newer media. Interactive media is 
responsible for blurring the line between the sender and receiver of messages (Singer, 1998). 
Internet consists of three properties of data that are not usually linked with traditional media: 
synchronicity, interactivity, and demassification. Williams (1998) described demassification 
 
28 
 
 
 
 
as “the control of the individual over the medium which likens the new media to face-to-face 
interpersonal communication” (p. 12). 
Ruggiero (2000) stressed that “demassification is the capability of choosing media 
from a wide palette” (p.15). Chamberlain (1994) stated that the populace has entered an age 
of demassification in which people are able to select media from a wide variety through the 
introduction of new technologies, and which was previously only available as mass media. 
As compared to conventional mass media, new media like the Internet has introduced 
selectivity features that enable people to customize messages according to their needs. Rogers 
(1995) stressed that “these innovative characteristics make it tough to examine the influence 
of a new communication system through prior studies” (p.9). Rogers (2003) reinforced that 
“conventional research methodologies and the traditional models of human communication 
are inadequate. That’s why the new communication technologies represent a new ball game 
for communication research” (p. 7). 
Brand loyalty 
 
Consumer brand loyalty is a concept that has been comprehensively researched and 
has been useful for businesses by generating word-of-mouth publicity and cutting down on 
expenses (Liu, 2006; Oliver, 1999). Consumer brand loyalty is described as a positive 
association with a brand and the tendency to repurchase its products despite competitor 
promotions (Liu, 2006; Oliver, 1999; Wood, 2004). Oliver’s (1999) framework of customer 
loyalty proposes that loyalty with a brand occurs in four stages, as shown in Figure 8. 
 
29 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Model of brand loyalty. Adapted from “Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of 
Marketing 63, pp. 33-44. 
In the first stage of Oliver’s (1999) model, a customer forms a loyalty towards a 
brand. This phase is called cognitive loyalty and occurs when customers rank the brand as the 
best one available in the market to meet their needs. This loyalty is formed over the cost 
versus benefits concept and has little to do with the brand itself (Oliver, 1999). Furthermore, 
it is vital to effectively communicate various product characteristics and price (Oliver, 1999). 
The first stage is considered a fickle one as consumers have not yet experienced the 
brand/product, and are vulnerable to switch to a competitor brand. Satisfaction is described as 
 
30 
 
 
 
 
a gratifying experience in response to consumption or usage (Cadotte, Woodruff, and 
Jenkins, 1987). Satisfaction, once achieved, paves the way for positive perception of the 
brand, leading to stage two of the model (Pasovac, Sanbonmatsu and Fazio, 1997). 
Once a customer has a positive experience with a brand or a product, they move onto 
the loyalty phase, where they become frequent users of the brand and like it because of its 
cost benefit ratio. However, they remain vulnerable to change, and can switch if a better 
product, with a lower price, is introduced (Oliver, 1999). 
Once consumers have established a firm bond with the brand due to several factors 
like quality, satisfaction and likeability, they move onto the third stage of the model where 
they develop cognitive loyalty. This is where consumers become unofficial advocates of the 
brand and consistently provide feedback to the company to improve its quality and assist with 
its promotional activities. However, the customers continue to remain vulnerable to change if 
a competitor’s product supersedes in both price and quality. 
After the first three stages, if the brand manages to retain its quality and is widely 
available for purchase, then the consumer moves onto the final stage of the model also called 
action loyalty. In this phase, the customer is willing to ignore competitor brands and overlook 
any obstacles to buy the same brand again (Oliver, 1999). 
Conditional value is dependent on value evaluation and manifests only within specific 
conditions (Holbrook, 1994). As stated by Rundle-Thiele and Bennett (2001), the best 
method to initialize loyalty is to examine both behaviors and attitudes. Brand communication 
establishes customer loyalty mostly through relatable content and extent. Information 
handling initialized by casual brand communication builds consumer commitment and value, 
as well as communication enhancement significantly improves consumer commitment and 
value. Improvement in methods of communication enhances customer loyalty in terms of 
 
31 
 
 
 
 
behavior and attitude. On the other hand, if not properly assessed, an increment in 
communication can annoy a consumer to the point that he or she may opt for a competitor 
brand with the sole purpose of avoiding spam marketing (Oliver, 1999). 
Interactive personalization 
 
Research has proven that a large variety of a single product can lead to information 
overload and confusion. First, a surge in product variety does not guarantee greater value to 
the consumers and can lead to confusion. Second, while researchers believe that some 
consumers may enjoy interacting with the company and providing their input on product 
development others might find the exercise annoying due to lack of skills or expertise 
(Bendapudi and Leone, 2003). As a result, frequent customization can cause confusion and 
dissatisfaction in the end (Huffman and Kahn, 1998). 
Fry and McCain (1983) discovered that an individual’s inspirations, assessments and 
expectations decide the benefits of a medium. The use of Internet varies among people; some 
people have specific goals they want to achieve by visiting certain websites and some are 
new to the medium and use it to learn the technology and have some fun. Furthermore, in 
digital discussion forums, some users actively participate in discussions while other chose to 
be silent observers (Ruggiero, 2000). 
Fredin and David (1998) stated that audience activity in context of hypermedia use 
has three interconnected features that require observation of individual user interaction. First, 
hypermedia required consistent replies from the audience as it halts if the response process 
stops. Second, the audience is given a wide variety of options to choose from. Third, a 
person’s choices are often reliant on a sequence of prior responses. Sundar (1998, as cited in 
Ruggiero, 2000) argued that veteran Internet users made choices different from those of 
beginners especially when it came to accessing electronic news stories. 
 
32 
 
 
 
 
To improve customer interaction and to evade confusion, one-to-one marketing 
techniques have become quite popular among experts (Peppers and Rogers, 1993). In fact, 
one-to-one customizations attempt to improve interaction among the firm and the consumers, 
along with presenting customized value in form of support and terms of services. Wind and 
Rangaswamy (2001) described “customization” as an involvement with firms during initial 
stages of product development provides consumers with many opportunities to give their 
input about product design and functionality. Based on these opportunities, Prahalad and 
Ramaswamy (2004) presented a notion of co-creation containing “joint creation of value by 
the company and the customer” (p. 5). Co-creation exercises are fully formed in context of 
business-to-business (B2B) platforms and are progressively implemented in business to 
customers (B2C) markets. 
Reverse marketing is another paradigm that is quickly gaining traction in customer- 
driven variation. Sawhney and Kotler (2001) stressed on the progression of marketers: “in the 
information-rich regime, marketers need to evolve further towards customer-configured 
offerings, where the customization is done by customers and not by marketers” (p. 394). 
Reverse marketing engages a consumer by letting him or her assist with product design 
(Thomke and Von Hippel, 2002). Some businesses allow consumers to design their own 
jewelry and the company manufactures the final product. 
Engagement 
 
Carfi (2011) described social business strategy by three elements: 
 
1. The social interaction voyage: The voyage is an identifiable evolution of social 
interaction abilities that a large business goes through while transforming into a social 
business. 
 
33 
 
 
 
 
2. The relationship evolution: Though the notion of “purchase funnel” has been clearly 
understood for decades, there is a lack of conversations regarding a progress of 
business over the course of time. 
3. The social interaction matrix: A study of the process that focuses on brand-customer 
interaction on a social level, especially when both parties have different points of 
view about the relationship (see Figure 9). 
 
 
Figure 9. The social engagement matrix. Adapted from “The social customer manifesto” by 
Carfi, 2011, p. 23. Retrieved from www.socialbusinessnews.com/author/chris-carfi 
As a result of the deep analysis of loyalty in the millennial’s social emerging 
consumers, engagement with the brands through personal interaction and sharing opinions 
about experiences of consumption and relationships could lead for revised brand funnel 
dimensions. Sociological theories have been applied to understand how consumers react to 
social network influences. 
 
34 
 
 
 
 
For instance, the symbolic interactionism theory put forth by Mead (1934) defined 
how individuals build realities and establish identities through social interaction. Said theory 
remains relevant despite the fact the social interaction has changed significantly in this digital 
age. Implementing the symbolic interaction framework can help to understand how Internet 
communities reshape personal realities and identities and present a huge network with which 
to form relationships (Martinka, 2012). 
Mead (1934) maintained that social engagements are “central to the development of 
one’s social identity and functioning according to shared norms and values” (p.60). The 
benefits are found in how an individual chooses to build a social reality or the way a person 
communicates with other people as in verbally or non-verbally forms (Griffin, 2009; 
Martinka, 2012). 
Symbolic interactionism theory plays a vital role in context of social networks like 
Facebook and how people choose to present themselves in the digital spectrum. For instance, 
“When Facebook users communicate ‘what’s on their mind’ or update their status, they are 
offering a representation of the ‘self’, which is based on their social interactions with others” 
(Ellis, 2010, p. 39). 
The work of Mead (1934) was carried out long before the idea of Internet came into 
existence. For its application in today’s digital world, the theory had to be revised so that it 
could be effectively integrated into our digital society. Thus, the Hyper-symbolic 
interactionism theory was presented – a revision of the author’s earlier framework. 
Furthermore, the theory had to be revised to keep up with the advancements in the field of 
science, particularly those concerning the understanding of the human central nervous 
system. It can be argued that the formation of digital communities, which promote different 
 
35 
 
 
 
 
forms, and levels of interaction enabled one to evolve “self” to such proportions that even 
Mead would not have thought possible (Lynch and McConatha, 2006). 
According to Lynch and McConatha (2006) a global “self” still exists, but manifests 
differently online due to the methods of online interaction. Also, hyper-symbolic interaction 
is the answer to the proximity of the Internet. The theory describes the formation of a 
different reality that is dependent on symbols found in the digital world, and “comprises the 
smallest symbols such as the l's and 0's of computer language and the tiny pixels of digital 
imagery, as well as the complex contemporary imagery of advertisements and commercials 
produced daily” (Lynch and McConatha, 2006, p. 91). 
The symbolic imagery establishes norms and values different from those present in 
non-digital communities. Advertisers and marketers fill up the digital realm which influences 
the reality humans-construct along with affecting the rules humans abide by. Digital 
interaction is different from real life. Elevation in digital marketing causes individuals to 
visualize marketers and their ads as real. This phenomenon is described as neuromarketing – 
a term that highlights the shift in reality (Martinka, 2012). 
According to Martinka (2012), this generalized global version that influences one’s 
“self” in the electronic era is based on consumerism as opposed to the generalized version 
laid out by Mead (1934). In turn, Haven (2007) mentioned a different approach to 
engagement, as a way to substitute the brand funnel model, encompassing four components: 
involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence. These are based upon multiple data 
sources, aimed towards a more comprehensive view of customer interactions, not only when 
choosing a brand, but also when influencing others in their own purchase processes. 
 
36 
 
 
 
 
Consumer generations and social networks 
 
It is vital to emphasize the vast differences in terms of media exposure/consumption, 
from one age cluster to another.  Throughout the study, a broad range of groups and social 
economic classes were included with a special focus on younger emerging consumers, 
namely, the millennial or generation Y, and post millennials or generation Z. These 
generations comprise individuals born from 1981-1995 and 1996-2000, respectively. 
The explanation for the differences in media exposure and consumption between 
groups and socioeconomic levels was based on the theory of consumer culture. Millennials 
are a dominant consumer group: they represent 25% of the global population and will become 
20% of the total populace by the year 2030 (US Census Bureau, 2013). Millennials have 
entered or will enter professional careers soon, and will be thought of as the world’s 
wealthiest generation by The Business Development Institute (2012). In the United States of 
America (USA), for instance, millennials are predicted to earn over US$ 3.4 trillion by 2018, 
thus surpassing the earnings of generation X (The Business Development Institute, 2012),  
and spending more than US$2.45 trillion by the year 2015 (Visa, 2012). 
Millennials are also predicted to become influential shoppers in the sense that a 
staggering 70% – 80% of them recommend a brand, or share their experience with a brand 
online or with their family and friends (Yarrow and O’Donnell, 2009). As the members of 
this generation become parents, the next generation of consumers will be influenced as well 
(Edelman, 2010b). 
Further, statistics reveal that an astonishing 80% of millennials are likely to support a 
brand of their choice, which makes them action-oriented. They are likely to share their 
experience with a brand and post online reviews to influence the decision of future shoppers 
as compared to former generations (Edelman, 2010b). Some 61% of the generation seek and 
 
37 
 
 
 
 
buy environmentally-friendly products where possible (You and Stone, 2009). Millennials are 
primarily thought of as the digital generation. Technology has had a big influence on their 
lives and will continue to shape their decisions. In the USA alone, the use of digital gadgets is 
far greater in millennials than in former generations. A head-to-head comparison reveals that 
millennials’ use of technological devices like MP3 players, gaming consoles and 
smartphones, outnumber the use by previous generations by at least 20% (Boston Consulting 
Group, 2012). 
Millennials frequently rely on social media to bring positive change. This exercise 
allows them to share their experiences online, which can shape consumer behavior. Social 
networks have enabled millennials to have a bigger social circle. According to Jade (2016), 
46% of millennials have 200 or more Facebook friends, which is twice more than previous 
generations 
When compared to other generations, millennials are more likely to explore brands on 
social networks when evaluating goods or services (53% vs. 37%), and routinely check a 
brand’s Facebook page and customized mobile websites (33% vs. 17%) (Boston Consulting 
Group, 2012). Statistics reveal that millennials inquire about a product or a service at an 
average of 7.5 times each month, some choosing to consult six different online resources 
before making a purchase. Family and friends, however, continue to be their main source of 
information and advice, with 77% preferring to consult family members and 64% choosing to 
consult their friends. Other frequently consulted resources by millennials include search 
engines (21%), expert websites (21%), and co-workers (20%) (Edelman, 2010a). 
Lazarevic and Petrovic-Lazarevic (2009) mentioned how different consumers in the Y 
generation are from those belonging to previous generations. Specifically, they mentioned 
how these consumers are hard to target due to resisting traditional market methods, low 
 
38 
 
 
 
 
loyalty, and a different relationship with brands by having been exposed to these throughout 
their lives. Also, Greenleigh (2012) discovered that a staggering 51% of Millennials are 
likely to value stranger recommendations over their family and friends. Furthermore, 
Millennials are more likely to search digital communities about purchasing electronics, cars 
and even finding the best hotels (Greenleigh, 2012). In fact, 84% of Millennials frequently 
query digital forums before making a purchase. 
Millennials often associate brand loyalty with trust since they perceive brands as their 
individual identities: “In today’s society, brands are everything; what you wear, who you 
wear, all matter…” (Consoli and Elche, 2012). Besides quality and affordability of a product, 
millennials look for several other traits including trustworthiness (78%), sustainability (71%) 
and ethics (70%). Trustworthiness is the single most important trait millennials look for in a 
brand. Once an air of confidence with a brand has been established, these individuals are 
more likely to reveal their personal information in exchange of receiving special discounts 
and coupons (Edelman, 2010b). 
Fernandez-Cruz (2003) claimed that Millennials are “…quickly surpassing its 
 
parents´ generation. Generation Y has grown up in a media-saturated, brand conscious world, 
and is keeping advertisers on their toes” (p. 150). In turn, certain traits have been found to be 
prevalent among millennials. These traits include an increased dependability on technologies 
like Internet, to research product information before making a purchase. According to 
Moriarty (2004), Millennials trust Internet and frequently use it as their main information 
source. In addition, these individuals want to ensure better living conditions and regularly 
align with brands that have green production facilities and boycott those which are harmful 
for the environment (Neuborne, 1999). 
 
39 
 
 
 
 
Generation X has been found to be a fickle generation that is particularly resistant to 
marketing efforts. This is partly due to the fact the generation X does not develop brand 
loyalty like millennials, making it harder to retain (Sebor, 2006; Wood, 2004). The third 
research question is related to the power of social networks in the consumer purchase 
decision. The question is on whether high levels of brand engagement could cause consumers 
to consider buying a brand through social network recommendations, despite never having 
seen any type of advertising about this brand. 
Social digital media has increasingly become a constant in the life of modern 
consumers. Individuals frequently connect and share with their families and friends on social 
media these days. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow people to express their 
opinions, share pictures and post status updates. However, these social networks have their 
pros and cons, both facilitate creations of online communities for people to instantly connect 
to – a feat, which cannot be easily, achieved offline. According to Mead (1934) and his 
theory of symbolic interactionism, people’s exchanges with other individuals and 
communities influences their own identity and future actions. 
Social media has turned into an excellent channel for marketers to reach out to 
potential customers and establish a new consumer base. In fact, it has become vital for 
marketers as it allows both the consumers and the brand to interact directly with each other in 
a personalized setting (Hanlon and Hawkins, 2008), with companies like Audi having 
harnessed the power of social media very effectively to reach out to their customers. 
According to Wasserman (2011) and Martinka (2012), fans of the German automobile giant 
are among the most engaged of all major brands currently active on Facebook. 
Customers can easily interact with their favorite communities and businesses on 
social media, which has led to a power shift among consumers and companies. According to 
 
40 
 
 
 
 
Lee (2010), social media is a powerful tool for everyday folk to use because it enables them 
to interact and create content directly (p. 112). This methodical approach to communication is 
far more efficient than former platforms, which provided a one-way communication channel 
between businesses and consumers (Lee, 2010). Not only is a company looking to interact 
one-on-one with their customer in a personalized environment on a social network, but also 
looking to establish a “friendship” – a trait which was completely absent in former modes of 
marketing. Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have made it possible for 
consumers to post reviews and suggestions that can greatly benefit like-minded individuals 
and communities. People are frequently using social media to read other people’s suggestions 
before making a purchase (Drell, 2011; Martinka, 2012). 
The effects of digital marketing communication on customer loyalty 
 
There are two main variables present in brand communication that could influence 
customer loyalty: content and frequency. Customer loyalty is the main outcome that is further 
divided into attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. A repeat purchase pattern along with a 
positive outlook for the product is mandatory to observe true consumer loyalty (Jacoby and 
Chestnut, 1978). The influence of brand communication is formed in a consumer’s mind via 
information processing which leads to a perception of value and commitment. Attitude and 
behavior can help measure the influence of brand communication on a consumer. Being 
consistently in touch with consumers can elevate their loyalty. The aim of advertisements is 
to have immediate short-term effects. Their influence starts to wear out with repetition over 
the course of time before eventually becoming null. 
Further research is required to enhance the usefulness of brand communication over 
long periods. Constant exposure to the brand communication process also improves attitudes 
and behaviors by enabling consumers to process more information (Berger and Mitchell, 
 
41 
 
 
 
 
1989). Studies show that consistent communication has positive influences on a consumer’s 
brand loyalty therefore strengthens the brand-consumer relationship (Aaker et al., 1997). 
Consumer-brand relationship can be thought of as a process that enables consumers to 
frequently interact with a brand. They perceive the brand as a friend or a trusted individual 
who occupies a space in their lives (Aaker et al., 1997; Fournier, 1998). 
Functional value is defined as the satisfaction experienced from the functional aspects 
of a product or service; emotional value of a brand is the experience of feeling happiness or 
pleasure; social and self-expressive value is the relationship experienced with others whereas 
epistemic value is the experience of gaining knowledge or novelty. The notion of 
commitment is described as the need to strengthen a relationship and is divided into 
continuance and affective commitment (Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer, 1995). Good 
communication relies on emotions such as friendship, identification, dedication and 
belongingness (Price and Arnould, 1999). Continuance commitment relies on choices, costs, 
dependence and investments (Gundlach et al., 1995). 
Personalization is anticipated to be a variable that can enhance consumer loyalty by 
forming better and personal service. Kotler (2000) states that personalization is systematic 
approach to classifying one-to-one marketing and customized marketing. As stated by 
Peppers and Rogers (1993, p. 62) “one-to-one marketing is the process of catering to every 
customer according to his or her need”. The aim is to classify customers on individual basis 
and personalizes their messages based on their needs. 
Also, Jansen and Schuster (2011) studied the efficiency of the traditional brand funnel 
model when applied on keyword advertising campaigns. These authors found that, even 
though each individual stage holds up when interpreting consumer behaviors, the model fails 
in accurately portraying the process followed by a customer during their purchasing 
 
42 
 
 
 
 
decisions; it also showed how keywords directed to create more awareness led to better cost 
effectiveness than those focused on purchase. 
Finally, according to Drell (2011), 20% of Facebook’s massive user base has searched 
the popular social network for a product and another 42% had posted a review about a 
product or a service. Deeper investigation of online behavior revealed two key classes of 
online sharing: low sharers and high sharers. High sharers comprise mostly of young adults 
who are loyal to their favorite brands and possess several computing devices. Furthermore, 
these individuals make up 20% of online shoppers. The rest 80% are older people who rank 
quality over brand and are less likely to repurchase from a brand if they discover a cheaper, 
better quality product (Drell, 2011). 
Summary 
 
Factors like brand equity, loyalty and purchase intention have been the main areas of 
focus of strategic market planning and provide a vital platform for constructing a 
maintainable competitive advantage (Dick and Basu, 1994). Investigations concerning loyalty 
have mainly concentrated on calculation issues and associations of loyalty with customer 
property in terms of segmentation. Though several studies have been conducted on brand 
loyalty, they all observed the behavioral aspect without accounting for cognitive elements. 
Brand loyalty is an advanced multi-dimensional notion according to Hanzaee and Asadollahi 
(2012). 
Wilkie (1999) defined brand loyalty as a “favorable attitude toward, and consistent 
purchase of a particular brand” (p. 198). Considering access to rapidly evolving technologies, 
the above-mentioned definition is too simple to comprehend brand loyalty in terms of 
customer behavior. This description states that customers are brand loyal when their 
behaviors and attitudes are in harmony with the brand. The explanation given by Wilkie 
 
43 
 
 
 
 
(1999) does not describe the strength of brand loyalty because it overlooks the likelihood that 
a consumer’s behavior may be unfavorable when making repeat purchases. This can cause 
brand loyalty of a customer to be unproductive and shallow. 
The definition of brand loyalty laid out by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) serves as a 
complement given the shortcomings found in the description delivered by Wilkie (1999). The 
former duo provided a theoretical concept of brand loyalty which is based on: (a) biased, (b) 
behavioral response, (c) communicated over a long period of time, (d) made by a decision- 
making element, (e) directed with respect to one or more brands out of a set of such brands, 
and (f) a function of psychological (decision-making and evaluative) processes. Considering 
the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty, Sheth (1988) presented an operational definition: 
“brand loyalty ... is a function of a brand’s relative frequency of purchase in time- 
independent situations, and it is a function of relative frequency and purchase pattern for a 
brand in time dependent situations” (p. 398). According to Assael (1992), brand loyalty 
signifies favorable behavior towards a brand, which results in frequent purchases over the 
course of time. 
Two researches are visibly prevalent in marketing literature. The first dubbed the 
instrumental conditioning approach considers frequent purchasing of one brand as an 
indicator of loyalty to that brand. Consistent purchases portray a firm stimulus-to-response 
connection and reinforcement. Studies that incorporate instrumental approach require 
probabilistic frameworks of customer learning to accurately calculate the likelihood of a 
customer purchasing the same brand again. This is more of a scholastic model of customer 
behavior, as it does not forecast a single course of action. The prediction factor always relies 
on probability. 
 
44 
 
 
 
 
The second approach to investigate brand loyalty is based on cognitive frameworks. 
Some scholars are of the view that behavior alone cannot influence brand loyalty. Loyalty 
suggested dedication to a brand, which might not be portrayed accurately by just observing 
behavior. Various researchers have identified differences present between brand 
commitment and loyalty, which indicates some extent of immersion. In context of cognitive 
view, brand loyalty is based on behavior of consisting buying of the same brand.  Behavioral 
calculations have described loyalty in context of sequential purchasing (repeat purchasing of 
a product) and the ratio of purchases in a given amount of time. It is argued that a consumer 
is said to be satisfied with a brand if he or she purchases the same brand within a relatively 
short time span (De Chernatony and McDonald, 1992). Managers require an accurate 
approach to correctly predict brand loyalty within their customer base; however, with so 
many parallel definitions presented by scholars, it is tough to attain an objective 
measurement. 
Throughout the analysis of the different theories that explain consumer behaviors and 
different psychological, sociological, and cultural motivations of the socially emergent 
millennial consumers, two questions arise: Is culture, and within that a particular lifestyle, a 
factor that determines media consumption preferences? Are the consumption attitudes 
underlying the social class and age range explained by lifestyle? 
Marketers assume, as a result of their marketing efforts, that customers would 
increasingly use the same kind of products, eat the same kind of food and watch the same 
kind of television shows, in opposition to reality (De Mooij, 2003). It is vital for marketers to 
not only significantly enhance the competition on a global scale but also get accustomed to 
various traditions, habits and preferences of global consumers. 
 
45 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions 
 
A review of the literature suggests that the engagement and loyalty of consumers to 
brands are connected to consumers’ ages as well as their social and economic class. It is 
therefore possible to examine the connection between brands among emerging millennial 
consumers, as related to the life styles that are created and reinforced by the new technology. 
Consumer behaviors related to the combination of age bracket and emerging social 
class has not been researched until now. Therefore, is pertinent to move deeper inside in to 
this field. 
In the other hand culture, subculture and urban tribes appears as crucial drivers of 
sociability that could explain the behaviors of the millennials and post millennials, socially 
emergent in Latin America, that never been researched. 
Culture is defined as “the complex of beliefs of human societies, their roles, their 
behavior, their values, traditions, and customs”. Culture is a crucial notion for comprehending 
customer behavior and attitude. According to Salomon, Bamossy and Askegaard (2006, p.35) 
“Culture is the sum of a shared purpose among members of society, and includes its customs, 
norms, and traditions”. 
Culture consists of factors such as belief and beliefs of individuals in a single 
community reflect a common thought process. Due to significance of cultural practices, 
exploration of cultural diversity has been a key ingredient in understanding consumer 
behavior, especially in terms of product positioning, market segmentation and target market 
(Yakup, Mucahit and Reyhan, 2011). Another important paradigm that needs to be further 
investigated in context of marketing management is subculture. 
Within a culture, individuals that demonstrate similar values, cultural expressions and 
behaviors tend to form smaller groups, called sub-cultures (Lenartowicz and Roth, 2001). 
 
46 
 
 
 
 
Geographical boundaries and religion play a crucial role in establishing subcultures. People 
belonging to different regions or cultures have different preferences, values, traditions and 
behaviors. These differences form the basis of subcultural classification of marketing 
activities. 
Social groups are formed by individuals and usually consist of likeminded individuals 
who have the same values, etiquettes and behavior. These traits can be different from people 
belonging to other social classes (Hoyer and Deborah, 1997). 
 
47 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 3: Method 
 
A brand funnel structure (McKinsey, 2009) was contrasted with an investment 
strategy to measure the effect of media on brand loyalty, also evaluating the differences on 
the purchased product types among consumers of different age clusters and socioeconomic 
status. The following section explains the methods selected for the analysis of investment 
strategies in terms of the effect on the brand funnel. 
This chapter covers the research methodology employed to answer the research 
questions formulated by this thesis.  The research strategy is described in the following 
sections, specifying space, time, and demographic characteristics of the population. The 
development, validation, and use of a measurement instrument were elaborated upon for the 
appropriate population distribution. The approach to data analysis is explained, and the use of 
structural equation models to assess different investment strategies for the effect of media on 
brand loyalty described. 
Research Design 
 
The implemented design consisted of a correlational study, using data gathered from 
in-person surveys in Colombia. The complete survey structure has been included in Appendix 
A. The survey was designed based on the questions used by Aaker (1991) and Keller (2008), 
its relevance in the Colombian context being checked through semistructured interviews on 
experts. The survey data was analyzed to test the probabilities of transition by product type, 
for different age clusters and socioeconomic statuses. A simulation was performed using the 
data obtained with the instrument, to assess the relationships defined in the McKinsey funnel. 
The model used was a structural equation modelling (SEM) model with a decision 
tree for the distribution of the marketing levels at the awareness state (defined as the first 
state of the model structure), to predict the costs and benefits over time. The simulation 
 
48 
 
 
 
 
analysis was employed to evaluate change over the course of a lifetime using age clusters 
(introducing transition probabilities for the different age clusters). 
The consideration step was defined as the second state of the model, which leads to a 
transition into the third step. Such step, the buy step, is determined by the choice of a 
consumer to prefer a given product above others. Loyalty defines the fourth transiting state, 
when a consumer accepts the recurrence of the purchase. Last, the final state of engagement 
is defined by the number of purchases, originating from the previous step (loyalty). 
The dependent variables are reflected by the proportion of consumers who arrive to 
the states of loyalty and engagement. The independent variables are determined by the 
different investment strategies represented in both funnel analogies. For the old funnel, these 
variables are investment costs for advertisements in television, cable, radio, or press. The 
model to be tested in this research specifies Internet search strategies, advertisement via 
email, mobile messaging and chat platforms on web pages, social networks, or website use. 
Details of the model structure are shown in Figure 10. 
 
 
Figure 10. Schematic design of the research: High-level view. 
 
49 
 
 
 
 
In turn, it must also be stated that the construction of the factors associated with each 
of the hypotheses to be tested and added to the SEM, was conducted using principal 
component analysis, with the components being taken in accordance with cumulative 
explained variance. Its results are displayed in Appendix B. 
Appropriateness of Design 
 
For the current study, the SEM technique was selected, as it provides the opportunity 
to test the hypothesized model in a simultaneous analysis of the entire system of variables to 
determine the parameter estimates and the model fitness, and its purpose consists of 
analyzing the relationships between a set of observed indicators or variables, and one or more 
factors or latent variables. (Hair et al., 2010) 
Rigdon (1998) claimed structural equation modelling as a methodology for 
representing, estimating, and testing a theoretical network. In turn, MacCallum and Austin 
(2000) explained theory testing as testing hypothesized patterns of directional and non- 
directional relationships among a set of observed and unobserved (latent) variables. Also, 
Hair (2009) said that structural equation modeling is an extension of several multivariate 
techniques, most notably factor analysis and multiple linear regression. 
Given the goals of the current research, the SEM technique allows setting the five 
stages of the brand funnel as the latent variables, to be measured through observed variables 
originating from a questionnaire based on Likert scales. According to Awang, Afthanorhan, 
and Mamat (2016), despite Likert scale-based observed variables feature an ordinal scale, 
against the usually expected ratio scale expected from observed variables in a SEM model, 
ordinal variables based on Likert scales featuring an adequate scale size are able to create 
valid constructs; the authors reached that conclusion parting from validations using 
confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis. 
 
50 
 
 
 
 
Also, by using the stages of the brand funnel as latent variables, it is possible to 
analyze the relationship and influence each stage has on the others, as well as the impact of 
each observed variable upon the latent variable. The SEM technique has seen application in 
marketing research before, one example being the study conducted by Hellier, Geursen, Carr, 
and Rickard (2003), in which they measured customer repurchase intention through a SEM, 
using latent variables such as perceived quality, perceived equity, perceived value, customer 
satisfaction, customer loyalty, expected switching cost, and brand preference. 
Finally, principal component analysis (PCA) is defined as a “data analysis tool that is 
usually used to reduce the dimensionality (number of variables) of a large number of 
interrelated variables, while retaining as much of the information (variation) as possible” 
(NCSS, 2015, p.1). This technique served as a way to reduce the number of observed 
variables in the model, by eliminating redundancies while keeping most of data. 
Research Questions 
 
1. Does the level of advertising in all media drivers increase awareness for all types of 
consumers when they recognize a brand in particular? 
2. Have the options in the brand set considered by consumers at the time of buying a service 
or a product, already undergone a filter process that eliminated those brands that the 
consumer did not see or hear about in the media at any time in the past? 
3. Is purchasing a product in physical or virtual outlets directly related to brand knowledge, 
which gained through advertising influences on consumers by the media prior to the 
purchase? 
4. Are brand adoption and consumer loyalty as the first choice at the moment of purchasing, 
achieved with high levels of advertising through media drivers? 
 
51 
 
 
 
 
5. Do factors like word of mouth, interaction with the brand, and memorable experiences, 
affect consumer engagement at the moment of purchasing or repurchasing products, 
services, or both? 
6. How does the impact of media investment in brands differ according to consumer 
demographics (age and socioeconomic status) at each stage of the brand funnel? 
7. Can a high level of brand engagement lead consumers to consider buying a brand through 
a social network recommendation, despite never having seen any type of advertising 
about that brand? 
Population 
 
The model was applied to the survey data collected from the sample in Colombia, 
which follows certain demographic patterns. The total population for that country was 
estimated to be 47,121,089 in 2013 (DANE, 2011). The aim of the research is implementing 
the model created from data obtained from this population, to understand its consumer 
patterns. Table 2 reflects the operationalization of age clusters in the Colombian market, 
while Table 3 reflects socioeconomic statuses of the Colombian population, based on DANE 
(2011) categories. 
Table 2 
 
Operationalization of age clusters in the Colombian market 
 
Code Ages Generation 
T 12-13 Teens 
Z 14-17 Generation Z 
M 18-30 Millennial 
X 31-45 Generation X 
Bb 45-60 Baby Boomers 
 
Table 3 
 
Colombian socioeconomic statuses 
 
52 
 
 
 
 
International Definition Colombian Definition Description 
A 6 High SES 
B 5 Medium high SES 
C 4 Medium SES 
D 3 Low income consumers 
E 2-1 Poverty 
 
Note. SES = Socioeconomic Status. 
 
Informed Consent 
 
A written consent was recorded in the survey. The contents of the message described 
the aims of the survey and invited people to respond to a 50-minute survey. This message 
specified that the information gathered would remain confidential, and if prospective 
respondents gave consent, they could go on to answer the survey. The informed consent 
clearly stated the research goals, as well as the procedures used for the survey and a 
compromise of confidentiality on information and the publication of study results. A copy of 
the informed consent remained in power of the respondents, the other copy being filed by the 
researcher, as the only incentive to respond was offering full results to respondents. 
Sampling Frame 
 
A survey was conducted to obtain the indicators needed to run the model, in terms of 
investment costs and benefits of loyalty. A sample of 1,800 consumers was invited to 
participate, and 800 respondents accepted the invitation. The sample size was determined by 
using the formula n = z2(pq)/d2 with a 95% confidence interval, assuming that the probability 
of the occurrence for the event of interest is 65% and the absolute difference desired for the 
estimation is 3 units: n = 1.96(65)(50)/32 = 744.44. Because stratification by gender and age 
is necessary, the required sample was inflated to 800 respondents, in order to obtain 
responses from 400 women and 400 men. Table 4 shows the distribution of the sample across 
 
53 
 
 
 
 
age groups, demonstrating that each age group is expected to be adequately represented in a 
sample of 800. 
Table 4 
 
 
Age category and gender for the Colombian population  
Number of inhabitants Weights Sample size 
Age group Men Women Total Men   Women Men   Women 
0 to 4 2,106,179 2,002,682 4,108,861  
5 to 9 2,197,689 2,098,224 4,295,913 Excluded from the survey 
10 to 14 2,214,464 2,124,582 4,339,046  
15 to 19 1,975,856 1,957,898 3,933,754  
20 to 24 1,783,320 1,858,519 3,641,839 0.15 0.144 60 58 
25 to 29 1,590,993 1,689,774 3,280,767 0.13 0.13 54 52 
30 to 34 1,401,139 1,516,151 2,917,290 0.12 0.117 47 47 
35 to 39 1,392,512 1,526,649 2,919,161 0.12 0.118 47 47 
40 to 44 1,304,948 1,427,556 2,732,504 0.11 0.11 44 44 
45 to 49 1,088,238 1,203,070 2,291,308 0.09 0.093 37 37 
50 to 54 876,301 959,039 1,835,340 0.07 0.074 30 30 
55 to 59 692,733 757,925 1,450,658 0.06 0.059 23 24 
60 to 64 524,576 580,157 1,104,733 0.04 0.045 18 18 
65 to 69 428,876 492,178 921,054 0.04 0.038 14 15 
70 to 74 321,765 380,753 702,518 0.03 0.029 11 12 
75 to 79 228,608 275,830 504,438 0.02 0.021 8 8 
80+ 207,920 281,280 489,200 0.02 0.022 7 9 
Total 20,336,117 21,132,267 41,468,384 1 1   
Sample size      400 400 
Subtotal 
without 
excluded age 11,841,929   12,948,881   24,790,810 
groups 
 
Note. Adapted from the Data Catalog by Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE) 
(National Department of Statistics in Colombia), 2011.Colombian Population by Range Age. 
 
Confidentiality 
 
The survey did not record the names or any personal identification from respondents, 
and data is shown in aggregate form. As stated above, the informed consent told respondents 
about the confidential nature of the gathered data. 
 
54 
 
 
 
 
Geographic Location 
 
The study took place in Colombia; the aim is to describe the consumer patterns for this 
geographical area in crowded locations such as malls, chain stores, department stores, public 
parks and shopping areas, located in the four largest Colombian cities: Bogota, Medellin, Cali 
and Barranquilla. 
Instrumentation 
 
The model was created parting from data gathered through the Colombian Media 
Consumer Affinity Survey (see Appendix A). Thus, the variables to be measured were built 
for the following constructs represented in the model: 
1. Awareness (A) measured whether the product is remembered or not without any help. 
The question was defined in terms of whether the person had heard of the examined 
product brands. 
2. Consideration (C) measured choice intention, being used to determine the likelihood 
of buying a product of a specific brand. 
3. Buy (B) measured the actual consumer choice; it was based on a record of past 
purchases. 
4. Loyalty (L) measured a construct of preference. After the consumer has bought the 
same brand of a specific product type more than once, it is the probability of the 
consumer choosing the same product next time he or she buys the same product 
brand. It also measured the probability of considering a different brand and returning 
to the consideration state. 
5. Engagement (E) measured the level of engagement with the brand, when consumers 
do not change brand preference. 
 
55 
 
 
 
 
The measurement of each construct was defined parting from previous research, and the 
data was entered from the following questions: 
A1. Have you heard of the brand name? 
A2. Are you familiar with the products? 
A3. What is the impact of the brands advertising in the brand awareness? 
C1. Is it the brand that has the best price/benefit ratio? 
C2. Is it the brand you prefer? 
 
C3. What are the media drivers that influence your brand choice? 
B1. What is the brand that you bought in the last three months? 
B2. What are the main drivers that influence your purchase brand decision? 
B3. Where do you buy (availability)? 
L1. Is it the brand you always buy and would buy again? 
L2. Is it the brand that meets all your expectations? 
L3. Do you consider it as a second option to purchase when your person favorite brand is 
not available? 
E1. Do you share with social your social network your experience about the brand usage? 
E2. Do you recommend your person favorite brand to your friends/family? 
E3. Could a social network recommendation of some brand cause that you consider 
buying in spite that you never saw any kind of advertising about this brand? 
Media drivers are the following: 
 
MD1. Television: Impulses from public and private TV channels (cable) 
MD2. Radio: Messages through radio signals 
MD3. Press: Advertising in magazines and newspapers 
 
MD4. Social media: Social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and so forth. 
 
56 
 
 
 
 
MD5. Searching: Searches made on the Internet using different kinds of search 
engines like Google, Yahoo, and so forth. 
Moderating and Mediating Variables 
 
Moderating and mediating variables include socioeconomic statuses, age clusters, and 
product types. Socioeconomic statuses (SES) are defined as follows: 
A. High SES: Income level per family above US$20,000 per month. 
 
B. Medium high SES: Income level per family between US$10,000 and 
US$19,999 per month. 
C. Medium SES: Income level per family between US$2,500 and $9,999 per 
month. 
D. Low SES: Income level per family between US$500 and $2,499 per month. 
 
E. Extremely low SES: Income level per family below US$499 per month. 
Age clusters (AC) are defined as follows: 
Z. Post Millennials: 14 to 17 years old. 
 
M. Millennials: 18 to 30 years old. 
 
X. Generation X: 31 to 45 years old. 
Bb. Generation Y: 45 to 60 years old. 
Types of industries are the following: 
 
FMCGs. Fast moving consumer goods companies. 
DP. Durable products. 
Relationships among Constructs and the Hypotheses 
 
Media drivers affecting all type of consumers, thus generating awareness, 
consideration, buying intention, loyalty and brand engagement, are: 
1.  H1: MD → A. 
 
57 
 
 
 
 
2.  H2: A → C. 
 
3.  H3: C → B. 
 
4.  H4: B → L. 
 
5.  H5: L → E. 
 
6.  H6: M+EC+TP → Different level of effect of MD. 
7.  H7: E → C. 
Social media networks could influence consumer purchase decisions without 
exposure to media drivers. 
In order to analyze brand loyalty using the structural equation model method, ten 
main product categories were tested. Brands for each category were selected based on their 
market share in Colombia, where the study was conducted. Main categories were selected 
based on the international Nielsen classification, a major worldwide marketing research 
company. These product categories were alcoholic beverages, personal care, perfumes, food, 
home furniture/appliances, electronics/computers, juices/beverages/tea, over-the-counter 
medicines, home care products, cars/motorcycles. 
Omnicom Media Group, the largest worldwide media buyer, provided market share 
by category in the Colombia market. Media drivers were consolidated based on the top five 
worldwide classifications done by major media research companies like Omnicom and 
Havas. Therefore, the media drivers that were tested are television, radio, print, social media 
and searching engines, as Table 5 shows. 
 
58 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 
 
Data table layout from Omnicom Media Group 
 
Product category Brands Audiences Media Share of Market investment share 2014 
 
Candy/snacks/cooki Brand1, 
Under 
18,18- TV, radio, 
  
 Brand1, 
es/drinks/sodas/juice Brand2, print, social Brand3 30,31-45, media, By brand 
By brand2, 
/tea/food in general 45-60, over brand brand3 … 60 search … 
Over the counter 
health products 
(non-prescription 
medicine) 
Alcoholic beverages 
Personal hygiene 
supplies, e.g. 
shampoo, creams, 
deodorants, etc. 
Perfumes, colognes 
and/or lotions. 
Electric home 
appliances (T.V., 
electric cook top, 
toaster, coffee 
machine, washing 
machine, dryer, 
refrigerator, etc.) 
 
 
Variable operationalization was achieved through questions on the five brand funnel 
constructs: Awareness, consideration, buy, loyalty, and engagement. These variables were 
operationalized based on previous studies that defined how to properly measure these 
constructs. (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2008) introduced theoretical plans that associate brand 
equity with several customer response elements. Aaker (1991) highlighted four main 
elements of brand equity: brand associations, brand loyalty, perceived quality and name 
awareness. A summary of the variables and constructs is displayed in Table 6. 
 
59 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 
 
High-level research design: constructs and variables 
 
 
Consumers Media   Buying   Type of 
 drivers Awareness Consideration intention Loyalty Engagement product 
 
a. Millennial MD1 A1 C1 B1 L1 E1 TP1 
and MD2 A2 C2 B2 L2 E2 TP2 
emerging 
consumers MD3 A3 C3 B3 L3 E3 TP3 
b. MD4       
Consumers  
aged 35 or 
older MD5 
 
Data Collection 
 
Given the need to gather information on the brand funnel, the Colombian Media 
Consumer Affinity Survey (see Appendix A) was deployed. For its development, the 
questionnaire design steps laid out by Field (2003) were followed. Under these, there are six 
steps: 
1. Choosing a construct. 
 
2. Deciding on a response scale. 
 
3. Generating the items. 
 
4. Collecting the data. 
 
5. Analyzing the data. 
 
6. Assessing the questionnaire. 
 
For the above, the survey was created parting from the traditional brand funnel 
concept, as described by Court et al. (2009). Such brand funnel was selected as the main 
construct behind the survey, given the intention to obtain information on general 
consumption patterns and the significance each step of the brand funnel holds within the 
 
60 
 
 
 
 
buying process among Colombian consumers, parting from the media channels these 
customers employ to interact with products. 
Next, a response scale had to be defined. For this, using both commercial consumer 
surveys and the survey employed by Pauwels and Van Ewijk (2013) as references, multiple 
types of question were employed. That is, some questions were developed using single 
responses, while others saw multiple responses or open responses. However, for the purposes 
most related to the research, questions employed a Likert scale format. Once this was 
defined, the survey was created, and analyzed through experts, who delivered their opinions 
on the survey, the proposed questions and the intentions. 
Afterwards, a focus group was held with at least two individuals representing each of 
the market segments of interest, which provided a preliminary opportunity to validate the 
adopted concepts in the Colombian context. The resulting instrument was administered to a 
sample of approximately 60 individuals as a pilot study, with results from this sample 
providing a stratification strategy for the primary study, in which the instrument was 
administered to a sample of approximately 800 individuals that also lived in urban areas. It 
also provided relevant information about potential failures of the items included in the 
questionnaire. Ideally, in order to obtain a measure of external validity and test-retest 
reliability, a third study should be carried out in the future. 
Data Analysis 
 
The data gathered by the survey was entered and tabulated into an Excel spreadsheet, 
using a standardized format based on the survey structure; this was performed to run the 
statistical techniques as proposed on the data. In turn, the structural equation model 
parameters were estimated using AMOS, a widely-employed solution for estimating this type 
of models. 
 
61 
 
 
 
 
The latent factors were constructed using the a priori method, the theoretical 
components being employed as follows: (a) awareness is explained by the variables A1, A2 
and A3; which represented brand awareness; (b) consideration is explained by the variables 
C1, C2 and C3, which represented relevant factors to select a brand; (c) loyalty is explained 
by the variables L1, L2 and L3, which represent the loyalty to the brand; (d) engagement is 
explained by the variables E1, E2 and E3, which represented the experience with the brand 
and; (e) buy is explained by B1, B2 and B3, which represented purchase decision. 
The structural equation model is formed by two sub models that could be abbreviated 
by displaying them in matrix form, using the following formulation: 
Table 7 
 
Equations of the latent factors 
 
Latent Factor Equation  
Awareness (�1) �1 = �1�1 + �2�2 + �3�3 + �4�� + �
(1) 
4 𝜆1 
Consideration ( ) = + + + (2) �2 �2 �1�1 �2�2 �3�1 �𝜆2 
Buy (�3) �3 = 𝜃1�1 + 𝜃2�2 + 𝜃3�3 + 𝜃4�2 + 𝜃5�5 + �
(3) 
𝜆3 
Loyalty (�4) �4 = 𝜙1�1 + 𝜙2�2 + 𝜙3�3 + 𝜙
(4) 
4�3  + �𝜆4 
Engagement (�5) �5 = �1�1 + �2�2 + �3�3 + ��
(5) 
4 4 + �𝜆5 
Note. The latent factors are represented by �, with 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4 𝑦 5. The � factor represents the structural 
equation and includes the effects of other late𝑖 nt factors 3 
 
 
Thus, linear regressions are calculated for each regression, with the p-values for the 
estimates serving to test the hypothesis H0 = the parameter of the regression is 0, which leads 
us to reject or not the hypothesis of causality between the variables included in the regression. 
Small values of p- value allow us to reject the hypothesis whereby a relationship between 
variables is evident. 
 
62 
 
 
 
 
Validity and Reliability 
 
On the validity of surveys as a collection instrument nowadays, Pauwels and Van 
Ewijk (2013) mentioned how there is an ongoing debate in marketing regarding the 
usefulness of surveys, against online behavior metrics. However, the authors vindicated the 
relevance of surveys in marketing studies due to certain issues with those metrics, such as the 
fact they do not cover all population groups, brand engagement might not happen even 
among online shoppers, and limited effectiveness of online advertising channels. Thus, the 
authors mentioned how attitude surveys are good in sales prediction affairs, which is related 
to the goals of the current study. 
On the reliability of the questionnaire, it was validated using a Cronbach’s alpha test, 
to verify its internal consistency. For the sample, it reached a value of 0.915, thus indicating 
high levels of internal consistency in the questionnaire, at least for the sample on which it 
was deployed. Regarding the research instrument, it was designed in such manner that, 
should researchers wish to use the statistical model again, they should be able to do so 
provided they own the data, ensuring replicability. External validity is assured by the 
sampling techniques, which ensured the selection of a sample that could be defined as 
representative of the Colombian consumer. Finally, internal validity must be assessed yet, as 
this is an exploratory study on a new relationship in the Colombian case. 
Summary 
 
In this chapter, the methodology employed to test the research hypotheses was 
exposed. Despite having existed for more than a decade, both Internet and social media are 
considered as relatively new means through which advertisers can connect with consumers. 
The Millennial generation, for whom new technologies have always been present, may 
 
63 
 
 
 
 
exhibit buying behaviors and degrees of brand loyalty that differ from those of previous 
generations. 
As a result, traditional models of buying behavior and brand loyalty (e.g., McKinsey’s 
brand funnel structure) may not fit members of this generation as effectively as it did with 
previous generations, thereby affecting the effectiveness of advertising strategies directed at 
these consumers. This study employed several quantitative techniques to explore Pre- 
millennials and Millennials’ buying behavior, brand loyalty and the corresponding 
advertising investment strategies best suited to these consumers. 
 
Data about brand loyalty and buying behavior was gathered through a survey 
instrument administered to 800 representative Colombian consumers from the following age 
groups: 15 to 19 years; 19 to 24 years; 25 to 29 years; 30 to 34 years; 35 to 39 years; 40 to 45 
years; and over 45 years old. The questionnaire was designed based on those developed and 
tested by Aaker (1991) and Keller (2008). The survey provided data on consumer 
characteristics for statistical analysis (i.e., age and socioeconomic status), on the relation of 
consumers to specific brands across a wide representation of goods, and on the media through 
which survey participants may have been exposed to the advertising of the chosen brands. 
The survey was designed upon a framework in which several methods of brand 
equity, especially the hierarchy of effects framework and the perception-preference-choice 
paradigm, are integrated and provide measures relating to consumer perceptions of and 
relations to a product. Data allowed to determine which form of mass media is the most 
influential at each stage of the funnel, while differentiating between the media associated 
with the old funnel, namely, the traditional mass media (television, radio, print media, 
billboards), and media associated with the new funnel (social networks, SMSs, blogs, and 
websites). 
 
64 
 
 
 
 
The survey was also used to evaluate the interactions between both types of media 
found in both types of funnels, to determine their level of complementary interaction. From 
the survey data, frequency distributions for variables representing consumer perceptions of 
and relationship to a brand (awareness, consideration, buy, loyalty and engagement), and 
media drivers regarding brand, consumer ages and socioeconomic statuses, was compiled. 10 
main categories of products, namely, beverages, personal care and beauty, food, home 
furniture/appliances, and electronics/computers, were included in the survey, as well as 
specific brands within these categories, were selected based on their market share. Media 
drivers include television, radio, print, social media, and searches. 
The parameterized model is a structural equation model in which states, analogous to 
positions within McKinsey’s purchasing funnel, are the constructs associated to consumer 
relationships with products (i.e., awareness, consideration, buy, loyalty and engagement). 
These form a consumer’s progression down the funnel. The first state, awareness of the 
product, is changed with each exposure to the product’s advertisement, and the level of 
change in awareness depends upon the advertising medium. 
The literature supports the validity and reliability of this study’s design and 
methodology. The questionnaire was developed using the steps recommended in the literature 
and with information derived from published sources, thus ensuring content validity, which 
can be viewed as how accurately the magnitude and items of a paradigm have been outlined 
and represent what they are supposed to measure. Further, this approach ensures that should 
these same steps be followed by a researcher in some other location, similar results would be 
obtained. Focus groups with at least two participants from each market segment of interest 
were employed as a check on the reliability of the survey instrument, and the instrument was 
piloted before its main deployment. 
 
65 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 4: Results 
 
The study focused on high-demand product categories among the Colombian 
population; those were identified as: alcoholic beverages, food, beverages in general, 
personal care, home care, personal electronic devices, home appliances, perfumes, clothing 
and cars. Each is classified as durable or mass consumption goods. 
Key target groups were found in crowded locations such as malls, chain stores, 
department stores, public parks and shopping areas, located in the four largest Colombian 
cities: Bogota, Medellin, Cali and Barranquilla. Table 8 displays sample distribution among 
the four main cities, as well as the distribution between socioeconomic strata for each city. 
Table 8 
Representative sample by socioeconomic stratum 
 
City Population Sample SES 1 + 2 SES 3 SES 4 SES 5 + 6 
Bogota 7’963,379 400 42.50% 35.50% 1..6% 8.40% 
Medellin 2’486,723 200 45.50% 29.70% 11.60% 13.20% 
Cali 2’394,925 100 53.60% 24.70% 13.00% 8.70% 
Barranquilla 1’223.686 100 43.50% 32.20% 12.60% 11.70% 
 
 
A test questionnaire was created first, followed by a pilot test from which the 
necessity to change the way questions were formulated became evident. The initial 
instrument design was not optimal for understanding consumers and the potential responses 
to be obtained, nor equipped to extract relevant information for the investigation which, 
coupled with highly dispersed consumer behavior within each selected category, generated 
further need to obtain more relevant information per brand. Therefore, the final instrument 
employed was designed in such a way to collect information per brand on each category. 
The instrument was designed following the methodology applied by Aaker (1991) and 
Keller (2008), comprising 182 questions, from which seven gathered demographic data; two 
 
66 
 
 
 
 
were filter questions to ensure that the respondent complied with the parameters needed for a 
proper investigation. The remaining 177 questions ranged on a variety of topics related to 
durable goods and mass consumption goods. The questionnaire was divided into different 
themes designed to shed light on areas such as: knowledge, usage habits, buying habits, brand 
preferences, and re-purchase, aspects that influence the purchase, payment, shopping sites 
and advertising “Top of mind” (see the questionnaire section focused on media consumption 
habits of the Colombian population, in Appendix A). 
Table 9 presents the total number of participants surveyed among the four cities, and the 
participations each have on the total sample. 
Table 9 
 
Survey participants by city 
 
City Frequency Percentage 
Bogota 398 49.70% 
Cali 101 12.60% 
Medellin 203 25.30% 
Barranquilla 99 12.40% 
Total 801 100.00% 
 
 
The sample participations each city own in the survey are aligned with their 
populations, and thus influence over the Colombian representation. 
Table 10 
 
Survey participants by gender 
 
Gender Frequency Percentage 
Male 343 42.80% 
Female 451 57.20% 
Total 801 100.00% 
 
67 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 shows that the gender demographics represented in the survey are aligned 
with the gender demographics of the country, as well as those found within the four main 
cities 
Table 11 
 
Survey participants by age segments 
 
Age segments Frequency Percentage 
Pre-millennials 161 20.10% 
Millennials 528 65.90% 
Post-millennials 280 14.00% 
Total 801 100.00% 
 
 
Table 11 shows age segmentation and the participations for each segment within the 
sample. 
Table 12 
 
Survey participants by socioeconomic status 
 
Socioeconomic status Frequency Percentage 
SES 1 22 2.70% 
SES 2 316 39.50% 
SES 3 312 39.00% 
SES 4 88 11.00% 
SES 5 58 7.20% 
SES 6 5 0.60% 
Total 801 100.00% 
 
 
As it can be observed in Table 12, the specific disaggregation by socioeconomic 
stratum in the sample reflects the total population structure within the four main cities in 
Colombia. 
 
68 
 
 
 
 
Table 13 
 
Survey participants by occupation 
 
Occupation Frequency Percentage 
Unemployed 117 14.60% 
Housewife 106 13.20% 
Part-time employed 93 11.60% 
Full-time employed 264 33.00% 
Freelance 159 19.90% 
Student 46 5.70% 
Not responding 16 2.00% 
Total 801 100.00% 
 
 
Table 13 shows that 15% percent of total sample are unemployed, with almost 20% of 
those interviewed belonging to upcoming independent workers. 
Table 14 
 
Study population by educational level 
 
Educational level Frequency Percentage 
Without education 1 0.10% 
Elementary school 44 5.50% 
High school 363 45.30% 
Technical/ 
Technological 220 27.50% 
University 146 18.20% 
Postgraduate 17 2.10% 
Masters / Doctorate 3 0.40% 
Not responding 7 0.90% 
Total 801 100.00% 
 
 
Table 14 shows that more than half of the sample barely finished high school. 
 
To ensure proper data collection and compiling, boxes intended to capture control 
variables such as date of instrument application, start time, end time and interview length, 
were provided for the interviewer to fill out. 
 
69 
 
 
 
 
The interviewer was also responsible of reading to participants the confidentiality 
agreement, which stated that data would be employed for academic uses only. 
Pilot Test Process 
 
For the purposes of validating the questionnaire used for the research in the 
Colombian context, semi structured interviews were conducted on 26 marketing experts, 
digital marketing and social network experts, and CEOs of the main FMCGs companies. The 
interviewed experts were: 
 Nelson Garrido, president of the Colombian branch of Omnicom Media Group 
(the largest worldwide media services company). 
 Rafael de Nicolas, president of TBWA (one of the largest worldwide creative 
media agencies). 
 Hector Jaime Osorio, president of BBT (one of the top digital agencies in Latin 
America). 
 Oscar Cortes, vice-president of the Colombian branch of OMD (a media agency). 
 
 Max Henriquez, vice-president of Sancho (a Colombian advertising agency). 
 
 Francisco Umaña, global marketing director of GlaxoSmithKline. 
 
 Juanita Peláez, Latin American marketing director of Kimberly Clark. 
 
 Juan David Izquierdo, senior regional brand manager for the Andean cluster in SC 
Johnson. 
 Antonio Scannapieco, global head of marketing procurement at Mars Chocolate. 
 
 Martin Moschner, marketing and sales executive at Purina. 
 
 Diego Jackson, marketing and new business lead at Parallel SA. 
 
 Derly Osorio, omnichannel marketing manager of Pfizer in Colombia. 
 
 Roberto Gomez, consumer senior key account manager at Lenovo Global. 
 
70 
 
 
 
 
 Mauricio Villa, general manager of Skinco. 
 
 Christian Podlesker, general manager of consumer healthcare at Sanofi Mexico. 
 
 Yanir Karp, consumer healthcare country manager at GlaxoSmithKline Chile. 
 
 Gilberto Ugalde, general manager of Exeltis Pharmaceuticals. 
 
 Luis Laverde, general manager of Cosmoagro. 
 
 Diego Freire, general manager of Alere. 
 
 Juan Guillermo Reyes, scrum master of Andina Link. 
 
 Jose Maria Vich, CEO and founder of Apasiona-T. 
 
 Juan Carlos Bolaños, owner of Marketing de Servicios. 
 
 Miguel Fajardo, president and general manager of Limonada Publicidad. 
 
 Luis Alfredo Gonzalez, owner and managing director of Heart Inc. 
The following questions were asked to these experts: 
1. In your opinion, how has the digital era impacted the way you did marketing until five 
years ago? 
2. What is your current digital marketing investment amount, and what is your 
investment projection for the next five years? 
3. What is your investment percentage on digital marketing, relative to your total 
marketing budget? 
4. Currently, how do you manage their relationship with your brand consumers? 
 
5. What is the demographic and socioeconomic structure of your consumers? How do 
you see the projections for Millennial and Centennial consumers? 
6. How is your presence in social networks? Do you currently follow digital marketing 
investment metrics? 
 
71 
 
 
 
 
7. Are your marketing campaigns segmented by type of consumers? Or do you manage a 
single message for all consumer audiences? 
8. What is your opinion on the application of this survey to analyze the impact of the 
digital era on the consumers of your brands? 
From these interviews, it was concluded the questions originating from Aaker (1991) 
and Keller (2008) suited the Colombian context well. However, to determine if the deployed 
instrument offered significant benefits, and whether it could be successfully implemented in 
the research, the writing, structure and length of the questionnaire were tested by conducting 
a pilot test on individuals chosen randomly in the high populated sites in the capital city of 
Bogota. 
The performance of the pilot test was intended to validate several factors critical to 
the study’s success, as well as helping to fine-tune these. Factors such as instrument length, 
disposition of the people to respond the questionnaire, identifying if the vocabulary was 
appropriate for all participants, as well as the knowledge that participants should hold, were 
analyzed throughout the pilot. Thanks to the pilot, the filter questions used to assure 
participants compliance with research standards and parameters required for a successful 
investigation we adjusted, to avoid drawbacks at the time of applying the final instrument. 
Next, the pollsters received the required training, subsequently entering the fieldwork 
team, which was composed by four supervisors (one in every city), and eight interviewers per 
supervisor, responding to the latter. Training sessions were conducted in each city, following 
a common procedure: first, an explanation of the goals and scope of the study to sensitize the 
interviewers on the relevance and importance of the information to be gathered, followed by 
a detailed reading of the questionnaire reviewing the tone, moderation and the vocabulary to 
use. Last, an exercise was performed in which the pollsters applied the instrument between 
 
72 
 
 
 
 
themselves as to gain fluency and preliminary knowledge on the information to be gathered. 
These activities are intended to obtain better performance and accuracy at the time of 
collecting the information, as well as to avoid delays on the questionnaire data review, 
digitization and coding procedures. 
In order to make the sample more homogeneous, the only accepted responses came 
from individuals who were at least 14 years old at the time of the survey, who surfed the 
Internet more than one hour per day, using search engines, entertainment services, e-mail, 
and social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest, among others. The 
fieldwork took place between October 7 and December 12, 2015. There was rainy weather in 
various cities at the time, which created some difficulties for the interviewers; however, the 
field team could complete the data collection without any degradation to the quality of the 
gathered data. 
From the pilot test questionnaires, it was found that the average interview length 
reached nearly 50 minutes. The disposition of the interviewees to provide information did not 
constitute an issue once familiarized with the topics to be covered. Also, it was found that the 
participants of the pilot test were familiar and understood the categories involved, as well as 
the information that was being requested from them, except for those that did not possess the 
purchasing power to buy a motor vehicle once or repeatedly. Upon completion of several 
questionnaires, it became evident that the survey was quite laborious for both interviewers 
and respondents, primarily due to the repetitiveness of the questions for each category, which 
had an impact on the total duration of the survey. 
Once data collection from the pilot test phase was completed, it was proceeded to 
perform the required modifications to obtain the final instrument (see Appendix A). After 
completing data collection, a systematic review was conducted for each instrument, assessing 
 
73 
 
 
 
 
the consistency and coherence of the fieldwork responses for each question. 
Additionally, it was verified that all the boxes were filled legibly in the correct manner. 
The next step consisted of digitizing all collected data, strictly following the 
instructions received in the training of digitization, using the capture software SNAP 10 
PROFESSIONAL. This was followed by performing the encoding process, consisting in 
subjective aggregation of the different responses of the interviewees (open-ended questions), 
specifically of the responses (other), (which?). 
That means that the respondents’ answers were encoded and summarized in order to 
keep the original meaning of the response. Each one of these summarized responses is 
associated with a code for the internal management of the research. Finally, the base was 
consolidated, which led to a final database of 4.196 columns, bearing in mind that there are 
categories that possess more options than others do, and that some had spaces for additional 
options that consumers could add, as they could find them relevant. 
For the implementation of Structural Equation Model, it was decided to add variables 
to the database. This is a common modeling practice that consists of adding dichotomous 
variables, which take values of either 0 or 1. SAS Institute described the methodological 
detail for the creation of dummy variables, when it is required to include categorical variables 
in modeling methodologies that need numerical entry variables (Cabrera Rios, 2015). This 
way, the model proposed in the research can be applied, after creating the dummy variables, 
after making the equivalence between the variables collected in the implementation of the 
instrument. That is, to identify which questions correspond to which variables in the model. 
Moreover, intermediate transformations were made specifically in Likert scales to reach the 
final model variables (see Appendix B). 
 
74 
 
 
 
 
SPSS was used for information processing; the reference of the version used was IBM 
Corp. Releases 2010. IBM Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. 
SPSS is statistical software widely used in social science and market research companies. The 
variables for each of the constructs were designed bearing in mind the answers given by the 
respondents for each of the categories under analysis. 
Building Constructs/Questions 
 
For building the constructs/questions matrix, this research used the international 
questions that have been applied historically in other studies. Nevertheless, during the 
modeling process, some of these standard questions tend to lead to a new construct, 
specifically in the case of Consideration (C3). 
Construct awareness 
 
For construction of A1, A2 and A3 variables that explain this construct, the counts of 
the corresponding variables were made: 
A1.  1. Have you heard of the brands name of the product categories? 
 
The following were the questions: Q3, Q21, Q38, Q55, Q72, Q89, Q106, Q123, 
Q140, and Q157 
A2. 2. Are you familiar with the products? 
 
The following were the questions: Q5, Q23, Q40, Q57, Q74, Q91, Q108, Q125, 
Q142, and Q159 
A3. 3. What is the impact of the brand’s advertising? 
 
The following were the questions: Q19, Q36, Q53, Q70, Q87, Q104, Q121, Q138, 
Q155, and Q172. 
 
75 
 
 
 
 
After counting, the distribution of frequencies for each category and for each variable 
was analyzed, to build a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) from 1 to 5. Table 15 shows an example 
for variable A3 and Alcoholic Beverages category: 
Table 15 
 
Example frequency distribution for the variable A3 
 
Value Frequency Percentage Percentage of valid Cumulative responses percentage 
1 161 20.10% 21.20% 21.20% 
2 143 17.90% 18.80% 40.00% 
3 157 19.60% 20.70% 60.70% 
4 138 17.20% 18.20% 78.80% 
5 161 20.10% 21.20% 100% 
Missing 41 5.10%   
Total 801 100.00%   
 
 
The ranges of counts extrapolated defined partitions, which were in turn used to 
construct the variables C1, C2 and C3; the counts and/or groupings of the corresponding 
variables were carried out (see Appendix C). 
Construct consideration 
 
For construction of the variables C1, C2 and C3, the following procedure was 
employed: 
C1. 5. Is it the brand that has the best price/benefit ratio? 
 
The questions were Q10, Q28, Q45, Q62, Q79, Q96, Q113, Q130, Q147, and Q164. 
 
If the person mentioned both price and benefit when asked on their buying criteria, it 
receives a score of five on this construct. When only one of these is considered, a score of 
three is given. Otherwise, a value of one is given to this variable. 
C2. 6. Is it the brand you prefer? 
 
The questions were Q8, Q26, Q43, Q60, Q77, Q94, Q111, Q128, Q145, and Q162. 
 
76 
 
 
 
 
The preference on a brand is a motivator, which materializes at the time of purchase 
for one brand over another; however, it is not a concept that could be applied to a product 
category. In this sense, the concept of preference of an individual towards a product category 
does not apply. 
C3. 7. What are the drivers of the brand choice? (Media influence). 
 
The questions were Q18 and Q19, Q35 and Q36, Q52 and Q53, Q69 and Q70, Q86 
and Q87, Q103 and Q104, Q120 and Q121, Q137 and Q138, Q154 and Q155, Q171 and 
Q172. 
It was defined for this case that if the means were not mentioned in Q18, the score for 
that question would be one, and if these were mentioned at Q18, it would share a score with 
Q19. That is, if a specific mean is not associated with the publicity of the category, a score of 
one is allocated. In other cases, the qualification is obtained by adding the answers on the 
impact level that each interviewee assigned. 
Construct buy 
 
For construction of the variables C1, C2 and C3, the counts and/or groupings for the 
corresponding variables were carried out. 
B1. 8. Is it the brand you often buy? 
 
The questions were  Q6, Q24, Q41, Q58, Q75, Q92, Q109, Q126, Q143, and Q160. 
 
The dummies were counted, the distribution was observed and the ranges were built. 
B2. 9. What are the main drivers that influence your purchase brand decision? 
The questions were Q10 if the answer was advertising of the brand (2) then move to 
Q19(6)-Q20, and so on for each product category Q28-Q36(6)-Q37, Q45-Q53(6)-Q54, Q62- 
Q70(6)-Q71, Q79-Q87(6)-Q88, Q96-Q104(6)-Q105, Q113-Q121(6)- Q122, Q130-Q138(6)- 
Q139, Q147-Q155(6)-Q156, Q164-Q172(6)-Q173 
 
77 
 
 
 
 
B3. 10. Where do you buy? (Availability) 
 
Q13, Q30, Q47, Q 64, Q81, Q98, Q115, Q132, Q149, Q166. 
 
The dummies were counted, the distribution was observed and the ranges were built. 
 
Table 16 is an example of frequency distribution for dummy variables. 
Table 16 
Example of frequency distribution for dummy variables 
 
Value Frequency Percentage Percentage of valid Cumulative responses percentage 
1 447 55.80% 55.80% 55.80% 
5 354 44.20% 44.20% 100.00% 
Missing 0 0%   
Total 801 100.00%   
 
 
Construct loyalty 
 
For construction of variables L1, L2 and L3, the counts and/or groupings for the 
corresponding variables were carried out. 
L1. 11. Is it the brand you always buy and would buy again? 
Q9, Q27, Q44, Q61, Q78, Q95, Q112, Q129, Q146, Q163. 
The dummies were counted, the distribution was observed and the ranges were built. 
L2. 12. Is it the brand that meets all your expectations? 
Q8, Q26, Q43, Q60, Q77, Q94, Q111, Q128, Q145, Q162. 
 
Variance on the choice of a brand that fulfills the expectations of an individual was 
calculated, with it being extrapolated to the category under the assumption that due to major 
changeability, more brands fulfill the expected criterion. Thus, those product categories with 
bigger L2 values have less possibilities of filling the expectations of the individuals, in 
opposition to those categories that have low variance. 
 
78 
 
 
 
 
L3. 13. Do you consider it as a second option to purchase when your favorite brand is 
not available? 
The questions were Q7, Q25, Q42, Q59, Q76, Q93, Q110, Q127, Q144, and Q161. 
 
If the customer looks for at least one substitute brand when their favorite brand is not 
available, a score of five is assigned to them in the criterion L3. Should they not think of 
substitutes (i.e. by going to another shop to find the preferred brand), it is qualified with one. 
The dummies were counted, the distribution was observed and the ranges were built. 
 
Construct engagement 
 
For the constructions of the variables E1, E2 and E3, the following procedure was 
carried out: 
E1. 12. Do you share with your social network your experience about the brands? 
The questions that were made for the 10 categories evaluated were Q14, Q31, Q48, 
Q65, Q82, Q99, Q116, Q133, Q150, and Q167. 
 
In case the registry becomes one, the customer is qualified with five. Otherwise, it 
gets a one. This means that if the respondent shares its experience in consumer brands on 
social networks, a score of five is given, while a score of one is delivered otherwise. 
E2. 13. Do you recommend your person favorite brand to your friends/family? 
The questions that were made for the 10 categories evaluated were: Q15, Q32, Q49, 
Q66, Q83, Q100, Q117, Q134, Q151, Q168 if the response count comes out to 1 then the 
score is qualified with five otherwise 1, those people that are generators of opinion and make 
recommendations to their influence group are qualified with 5 while those people that do not 
generate recommendations are qualified with 1. 
E3. 14. Could Social Network recommendations of a brands cause you to consider 
buying from a brand? 
 
79 
 
 
 
 
The questions that were made for the 10 categories evaluated were: Q16, Q33, Q50, 
Q67, Q84, Q101, Q118, Q135, Q152, Q169 in case the registry becomes 1 is qualified with 
five otherwise 1, it means when the interviewee considers recommendations in social 
networks over brand advertising. 
Findings 
 
The hypotheses were validated using the software known as AMOS, following the 
model displayed in Figure 10. 
Hypothesis H1 
 
Results shown in Table 17 were obtained from testing hypothesis H1. 
 
Table 17 
 
Results for hypothesis H1 
 
   Estimate S. E  C.R  P 
AWARENESS ← A1_TOTAL -0.331 0.032 -10.467 *** 
AWARENESS ← A2_TOTAL 0.177 0.032  5.587 *** 
AWARENESS ← A3_TOTAL 0.558 0.031 17.822 *** 
AWARENESS ← MEDIA_DRIVERS -0.004 0.032  -0.138 0.89 
 
 
As the results in Table 17 show, the impact of the MEDIA DRIVERS towards 
AWARENESS is not significant, as it shows a p-value of .89, which is greater than 0.05, and 
is the value that is considered comparative for this type of analysis. 
In Contrast with Palda (1966) it means that the number of advertising impacts through 
the media does not necessarily generate recognition of a brand in the consumers. This is a 
very important finding as it evidences that on the population groups targeted by the study, 
Post millennials and Millennials, the traditional brand-consumer communication channels do 
not generate the desired impact. 
 
80 
 
 
 
 
Hypothesis testing: H2 to H7 
 
In accordance with the previous diagram, the results of the structural equation- 
modeling model run to test the hypotheses 2 to 5 went as shown in Table 18. 
In the same way, when assessing the significance of each of the regressions (p-value), 
it was found that: 
H2: AWARENESS > CONSIDERATION, it is not confirmed, its p-value is .108. 
H3: CONSIDERATION > BUY, it is confirmed, its p-value is <0.05. 
H4: BUY > LOYALTY, it is confirmed, its p-value is <0.05. 
 
H5: LOYALTY > ENGAGEMENT, it is not confirmed, its p-value is .824. 
 
Under these results, it is possible to observe the significance of the traditional way of 
brand funnel steps, CONSIDERATION leading to BUY and BUY leading to LOYALTY. 
Nevertheless, when a consumer considers buying a product, it does not necessarily purchase 
the brands that remember, meaning there are other factors such as price, promotion and 
availability, which could change consumer decision. Therefore, the materialization of 
purchased products in physical or virtual outlets is directly related to brand knowledge, 
achieved through brand adoption and consumer loyalty, are achieved with high levels of 
advertising consumer´s exposure. But the exposure to the brands is not a determinant factor 
to buy's decision, what is consistent with what was proposed by Palda (1966). 
Table 18 
 
Results for hypotheses H2 to H5 
 
   Estimate S.E C .R  P 
AWARENESS ← A1_TOTAL -0.311 0.033 -9.517 *** 
AWARENESS ← A2_TOTAL 0.175 0.033  5.363 *** 
AWARENESS ← A3_TOTAL 0.542 0.032 16.726 *** 
CONSIDERATION ← C1_TOTAL 0.195 0.066  2.952 0.003 
CONSIDERATION ← C3_TOTAL 0.332 0.074  4.478 *** 
 
81 
 
 
 
 
CONSIDERATION ← AWARENESS 0.105 0.065 1.608 0.108 
BUY ← B1_TOTAL 0.524 0.028 18.542 *** 
BUY ← B2_TOTAL -0.031 0.03 -1.061 0.289 
BUY ← B3_TOTAL 0.5 0.028 17.678 *** 
BUY ← CONSIDERATION -0.237 0.048 -4.948 *** 
LOYALTY ← L1_TOTAL 0.576 0 335240.863 *** 
LOYALTY ← L2_TOTAL 0 0 -4.038 *** 
LOYALTY ← L3_TOTAL 0.576 0 335285.875 *** 
LOYALTY ← BUY 0 0 30.947 *** 
ENGAGEMENT ← E1_TOTAL 0.189 0.102 1.858 0.063 
ENGAGEMENT ← E2_TOTAL 0.191 0.102 1.875 0.061 
ENGAGEMENT ← E3_TOTAL 0.176 0.102 1.726 0.084 
ENGAGEMENT ← LOYALTY -0.028 0.125 -0.223 0.824 
 
 
On the other hand, there is no significant relationship between LOYALTY and 
ENGAGEMENT, meaning that when a consumer is loyal to a brand, it does not necessarily 
promote their consumption among its social network. 
For the hypotheses H6 and H7, hypothesis testing is performed through 
disaggregation into socioeconomic levels, and by generational group based on the 
respondents’ age: pre-millennials, post millennials and millennials as independent 
populations. The results for H6 are shown in Table 19: 
Table 19 
 
Results for hypothesis H6, different consumer groups 
 
 P C.R S.E Estimate    
SES Low .059 -1.887 .061 -.114 MEDIA_DRIVERS ← AWARENESS 
SES Medium .002 3.071 .061 -.048 MEDIA_DRIVERS ← AWARENESS 
SES High .802 0.25 .079 -.02 MEDIA_DRIVERS ← AWARENESS 
Pre- 
Millennials .319 -0.997 .02 -.02 MEDIA_DRIVERS ← AWARENESS 
Millennials .695 0.392 .061 .024 MEDIA_DRIVERS ← AWARENESS 
 
 
H6 is confirmed for SES Low and SES Middle, on the impact of MEDIA DRIVERS 
to AWARENESS, with p-values of .059 and .002 respectively. But for High SES, Pre- 
 
82 
 
 
 
 
Millennials, and Millennials, this impact is no significant with p-value of.802; .319; and .695. 
For the Post-Millennials group, it was not possible to run the model because the high number 
of missing values for the involved variables. 
Based on the heterogeneous results derived from the model, it could be stated that the 
impact of media investment by brands differ according to the demographic composition of 
consumers when grouped from economic situation, but there are no significant relationships 
when grouped using age brackets, while also being able to state that H6 is accepted for all 
income groups. However, more evidence is required to confirm the hypothesis when dividing 
the simple into age groups. 
For H7, it must be mentioned that the research proposal analyzed potential changes in 
the traditional brand funnel process, emphasizing on changes in time and attaining the basic 
marketing goal of consumer engagement. Thus, the approach selected for this hypothesis 
states that Millennial consumers go straight to the CONSIDERATION stage without entering 
the AWARENESS stage, due to the power of social networks surpassing traditional ways to 
impact them as consumers. Therefore, another SEM was calculated for this hypothesis in 
particular. The obtained results are shown in Table 20: 
Table 20 
 
Results for hypothesis H7 
 
   Estimate S.E C.R P 
BUY ← B1_TOTAL 0.428 0.146 2.937 0.003 
BUY ← B2_TOTAL -0.211 0.129 -1.631 0.103 
BUY ← B3_TOTAL 0.548 0.13 4.219 *** 
LOYALTY ← BUY 0.236 0.074 3.182 0.001 
LOYALTY ← L1_TOTAL 0.258 0.088 2.94 0.003 
LOYALTY ← L2_TOTAL -0.027 0.089 -0.297 0.766 
LOYALTY ← L3_TOTAL -0.079 922.589 0 1 
ENGAGEMENT ← LOYALTY -0.161 0.022 -7.23 *** 
 
83 
 
 
 
 
ENGAGEMENT ← E1_TOTAL 0.368 0.012 31 *** 
ENGAGEMENT ← E2_TOTAL 0.388 0.012 32.959 *** 
ENGAGEMENT ← E3_TOTAL 0.408 0.012 32.959 *** 
BUY ← ENGAGEMENT 0.216 0.186 1.161 0.246 
 
 
H7 is not fulfilled in general for all macro-categories of mass consumption and 
durable goods, given that the regression shows a p-value=.246. Therefore, as the hypothesis 
is not confirmed, in contrast with Lynch and McConata (2006) there is no reason to conclude 
that the engagement of the consumers affects when buying a brand through recommendations 
from social networks, despite not having seen any type of advertising. 
Nevertheless, since it is not technically possible to conclude on this hypothesis based 
on macro categories, but on product categories, another analysis was carried out while 
discriminating through the latter. Initially, the analyzed categories were grouped into two 
macro categories, as mentioned at the beginning, in mass consumption such as alcoholic 
beverages, drinks in general, food, personal care, home care and perfumes; and other 
categories considered as durable goods: cars, personal electronics, clothing and home 
electronics; to identify possible causes of hypothesis rejection. Therefore, a mean difference 
test was conducted for those macro categories, seeking to determine whether the latent 
variables showed differences after being calculated from macro categories, leading to the 
results shown in Table 21. 
Table 21 
 
Mean difference test. Hypothesis to test Ho: Media1 = Media2 
 
 
Durable Goods Consumer Goods  
 
Variable  Mean Variance Count  Mean Variance Count Statistical 
test Decision 
 
A1 3.13 1.32950229   2403 3.11 1.21127814   5607 0.62372631 No 
rejection 
A2 1.99 1.86168351   2403 2.9 1.57811112   5607 -28.064661 Rejection 
 
84 
 
 
 
 
A3 2.64 1.84927563 2263 2.77 1.93151417 5399 -3.666457 No rejection 
B1 1.97 1.36175425 2403 3.18 1.57492604 5607 -41.303857 Rejection 
B2 2.27 2.97565501 2403 1.86 2.84153065 5420 9.88399914 Rejection 
B3 2.02 3.0371025 2403 3.27 3.92824061 5607 -28.183329 Rejection 
C1 1.82 1.71507768 2403 2.47 2.26282842 5607 -19.489264 Rejection 
C3 1.6 3.85 1265 1.27 5.62 2222 4.46612454 Rejection 
L1 1.96 1.32382275 2403 3.18 1.57492604 5607 -42.32881 Rejection 
L2 1.45 2.95325087 1314 2.15 2.01927482 4971 -13.53914 Rejection 
L3 3.18 3.96616727 2403 4.65 1.28781926 5607 -33.73835 Rejection 
E1 2.33 6.10495424 1321 3.4 3.57671308 5116 -14.65487 Rejection 
E2 2.38 6.02607185 1321 3.54 3.35809082 5128 -15.95256 Rejection 
E3 2.22 6.22473894 1321 3.33 3.67986616 5128 -15.06512 Rejection 
 
 
For the variables A1, A3 the premise of equalities between means is not rejected. For 
the following variables: A2, B1, B3, C1, C3, E1, E2, E3, L1, L2, L3, we reject the hypothesis 
of equality of means at 99% confidence. This way, it makes sense to analyze only the 
hypotheses that contain A2, B1, B3, C1, C3, E1, E2, E3, L1, L2, and L3. 
For the latent variable AWARENESS, there is no significant evidence of differences 
between durable goods categories and mass consumption ones. Thus, the hypotheses that 
involve this variable are not analyzed, these hypotheses corresponding to H1, H2 and H6. For 
hypothesis H3, H4 and H5, convergence was not obtained from the algorithm at AMOS 
software, thus regression coefficients are indeterminate. 
H7 is confirmed .05 lower for durable goods, while it is not confirmed for mass 
consumption goods, meaning that once the consumer is committed with the brand, it leads to 
repurchase for durable goods. This repurchase pattern is not necessarily clear or found on 
mass consumption goods. 
Summary 
 
The research was applied in the four largest Colombian cities: Bogota, Medellin, Cali 
and Barranquilla, in crowded places like malls, chain stores, department stores, public parks 
 
85 
 
 
 
 
and shopping areas. The most important product categories were selected based on the 
Nielsen classification. Selected categories were the following: alcoholic beverages, food, 
beverages in general, personal care, home care, personal electronic devices, and electronic 
equipment for home, perfumes, clothing and cars. 
Confirmatory factor analysis was chosen to analyze the data. It has become in the last 
years one of the most recommended procedures used in social science research. The 
confirmatory factor analysis is a procedure of analysis framed in the structural equation 
models, with the purpose to model measurement, analyzing the relationships between a set of 
indicators or variables observed and one or more latent variables or factors. 
 
86 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 
 
Social networks are dynamic by nature. Ties are established, which may flourish and 
perhaps evolve into close relationships, and they can also dissolve quietly, or suddenly turn 
sour and go with a bang. Sociability is one of the most significant functions of social media. 
Community and connectedness represent the sociability function of the best social media. 
The emergence of social media quickly allows people to form virtual communities, which 
consist of people sharing same interests or background. The subsequent effect of these 
communities is electronic word-of-mouth, which is far more influential than offline word-of- 
mouth. 
The connectedness of social media is strongly related to the user’s perceptions and the 
actual usage of social media platforms. It is a potential source of social capital in which 
people may realize their network benefits by managing both their strong and weak ties. 
(Riedl, Kobler, Goswami, and Krcmar, 2013). 
Even though the chosen sample is statistically representative, it is worth mentioning 
that it does not reflect the broad spectrum of consumer behavior that can be found across the 
Colombian population. Additionally, the influence of social media and Internet on a 
consumer’s daily life is an ongoing phenomenon; consequently, it must be analyzed through 
data acquired over time, intended to establish behavior patterns. 
Digital media investments are still small, representing 7% of total advertising 
spending in Colombia and only 4% in Latin America, showing there is still a long way to go 
on the maturity of communication strategies behind the construction of high impact 
relationships between brands and consumers in the digital age. Social network management is 
still incipient in Colombian and Latin American marketing, as it requires a deeper and more 
 
87 
 
 
 
 
structured anthropological analysis to unveil cultural and social drivers, aimed to build real 
conversations between brands and socially emergent young consumers. 
Conclusions 
 
The study’s findings show that sociability among the members of the socially 
emerging millennial communities positively affects consumers’ confidence and hold a 
significant sway on purchasing decisions. The level of communality and connectivity of 
social networking platforms represent sociability. The study reflects that the majority of the 
interviewed population spent more than two hours a day online, wherein it emphasized that 
Post millennials and Millennials are the predominant generations in permanent connection. It 
means they belong to a generation whose main objective is social networking connectivity, as 
well as searching for information and entertainment (See Table 21). 
The emerging socioeconomic segments, (low and middle SES) represent 93.3 % of 
the total for people with connectivity greater than 4 hours and, likewise, 92% of the surveyed 
population focused the use of digital connectivity on information, behaviors, opinions, and 
recommendations exchange through social networking platforms. 
When companies are building a brand, they focus their investment strategies on 
traditional media. However, study results show that product quality and price take a very 
relevant role in most of the evaluated categories, while brand advertising took a mediocre 
position (6th level of relevance) among the 12 most important drivers a consumer takes into 
account when buying a product. 
The influence of social networks (recommendations from friends/relatives) stands out 
as an important driver for consumers, when taking the decision of buying mass consumption 
goods, it ranks seventh among the 12 most important drivers. This finding is very important 
to the business world and marketing specialists, as it underlines a growing trend that asserts 
 
88 
 
 
 
 
the power of social networks on purchasing decisions. In contrast, all brand-consumer 
communication strategies even on the internet are only aimed at increasing brand awareness, 
without a clear strategy that actually builds bidirectional communication bridges, in which 
brands and consumers generate valuable conversations, intended to expand and strengthen 
long-term relationships between consumers and brands. 
The socially emergent young consumers are eager for social exchange, to talk with 
their brands, to build a personal relationship where brands become partners, friends, 
counsellors to their consumers; a relationship in which brands know deeply the tastes, 
preferences, trends and needs of their consumers as individuals, not just as a mass that 
receives eminently commercial, unidirectional messages, looking for only short-term 
relationships, limited to purchasing but excluding value, relationship for the community. 
Within the context of the fingerprint generated by consumers in their daily interaction 
with brands and purchase transactions, data repositories, which include nothing more than 
consumer behaviors expressed in terms of taste, preferences and consumer-brand affinities, 
have been created. Here is the great paradox of today's world: faced with so much 
globalization and information multiplicity, the consumer wants to be seen as an individual 
who wants to be recognized and understood as such. 
These consumers hope their brands know their names, tastes and experiences they 
believe to be memorable. Basically, the fingerprint is a consumers’ DNA in action, and 
brands should consider it a very valuable asset to develop value propositions tailored to suit 
each person. 
The cultural dimension is transcendental at the time of establishing long-term 
relationships between brands and consumers. Socially emerging young Colombian consumers 
(post-millennial, millennial, socioeconomic strata 2, 3 and 4) recognize their closest social 
 
89 
 
 
 
 
circles (family, friends, work/study partners) as valid interlocutors, influential when making 
product-purchasing decisions. The study shows a clear preponderance of the word-of-mouth 
factor when considering the purchase of durable goods (electronics, clothing, vehicles), and 
its growing importance when it comes to mass consumption products. 
The research confirms that consumers with high levels of conformity are more likely 
to depend on recommendations from family and friends on a product, and less on impersonal 
promotions (Clark and Staunton, 1989) 
It is appropriate to perform a deeper analysis on purchase drivers at the mass 
consumption industry level. Specifically, analyzing communication channels between brands 
and consumers, identifying patterns that promote more conversations in the social media 
about memorable experiences with these products. In a context of micro-tribes and 
consumers’ reluctance towards traditional media, word of mouth plays a fundamental role in 
the construction of value for brands, with consumers becoming co-creators of content for 
brands, with this content and/or experiences travelling exponentially throughout different 
digital channels, becoming living messages, attesting for the brand-consumer relationship. 
Theories about the impact of the altitude of the city in which people leave on 
consumers’ behavior have been raised from the anthropological point of view. The cultural 
behavior associated with customs and communication channels that create a pseudo-language 
for each region/country, with values and different ways of perception, symbolic 
representations of different social realities, certainly create a huge challenge to brands at the 
time of constructing and implementing powerful communication strategies that move the 
social and cultural fibers of consumers so diverse, with so different codes originating from 
communication and interaction. 
 
90 
 
 
 
 
The study demonstrated that is possible to distinguish four subcultures in the 
Colombian case, as follows: 
 Andean culture: associated to cities with altitude above 2,000 meters above sea 
level and more than 4 million people. Bogota fits into this category. 
 Mediterranean culture: cities with an altitude between 1,200 and 1,900 meters 
above sea level, and between 1 million and 4 million people. Medellin belongs to 
this group. 
 Caribbean culture: comprising cities that are near or with direct access to the sea, 
as well as populations between 1 million and 4 million inhabitants. Barranquilla is 
a city that carries this label. 
 Pacific/Andean culture: associated to cities near the Pacific Ocean, but with 
mixed Andean/Pacific cultural identity, and population levels between 1 million 
and 4 million inhabitants. Cali is a representative from this set. 
Implications 
 
Companies must assess social media with a diverse set of criteria. Are there many 
support groups or small communities on the platforms? Do community members frequently 
interact with their groups and capable over talking about a specific topic? How many 
members are active participants in a group? Regarding their followers and social networks, 
are they powerful influencers?  How influential are ambassadors or opinion leaders with their 
followers? Are group users willing to share purchase and post-purchase experiences of a 
product or service? All those inquiries will help companies to identify which are the most 
suitable strategies to achieve effectiveness in social networks. 
Similarly, it would be desirable to review the skills and competence profiles of the 
marketing teams, their sales, shopper marketing and managerial areas of the organizations as 
 
91 
 
 
 
 
well. The digital world has transcendentally transformed the relationship between brands and 
consumers. Therefore, the strategies, methods, and forms of marketing operations must be 
reviewed and updated accordingly to this dramatically different and more challenging reality. 
Considerable effort is required to conduct subsequent measurements for the current 
study in order to verify measurement stability and test hypotheses. A cross-sectional analysis 
is required every two years for monitoring changes in consumers’ habits, since the dynamics 
in the digital world are ever changing. 
Social networks are very often influencing decisions to purchase goods; it is 
suggested to monitor the progress of this influence to define the tipping point against existing 
marketing theories, in which the recognition and advertising have been the determining 
factors behind purchase and loyalty. Companies are still basing their investment strategies on 
marketing to increase brand recognition. However, this study confirmed for the first time in a 
Latin America country, following other studies in European countries and the United States, 
that millennials and post millennial consumers are not influenced by traditional methods as 
much as generation X and older ones. The sociodemographic structure of Colombia and Latin 
America demonstrate that the age group post millennials and millennials belong to may drive 
the economy in the following 10 years, which also allows reconsidering business investment 
models, approaches toward consumers, and methods to market and communicate. Likewise, 
it influences the manner to build loyalty and engagement. 
More than product advertising on internet or in social networks, what consumers 
expect from companies is to create conversations of high value to them, useful contents of 
interest to the community and any person allowing the people to set up two-way 
communication channels between consumers and brands. By doing so extrinsic, intrinsic 
values and needs, converge. 
 
92 
 
 
 
 
The brands-consumer interaction must tend to be more personalized and less 
massive.  It certainly is a big challenge for companies that a world of masses must be able to 
segment their consumers through a deep and uninterrupted study of their habits, preferences, 
transactions and culture. 
A deep anthropologic analysis about sub-cultures, social tribes, and their forms of 
social interaction would provide further proof of consumer behaviors; thereby, detailed 
awareness of consumption drivers associated with each segment and/or socio-cultural cluster 
will guide the design of the most appropriate communicative and interactive strategies 
between brands and consumers. 
Based on the above, an ethnographic profile (consumers’ behavior in digital social 
networks) could be established for each cluster, and powerful connections would be created 
from there, showing high value and impacting more successfully on the results from 
advertising investment that companies do in marketing and sales, completely in line with the 
behavioral realities, media consumption and products that Post-millennials and Millennials 
generations consume. 
Recommendations 
 
Since the scope of the study was limited to evaluate the impact of traditional social 
media (television, radio, magazines, public signs) and new media on Internet, it is suggested 
to extend the analysis of the model to other drivers (product quality, price, variety, store 
location, social recognition, payment facilities, customer service, display at the point of sale). 
That could impact on buying decision, as well as on consumers’ loyalty and engagement with 
their brands. 
In addition, it is important to go deeper into the cultural aspects (region, education, 
traditions, and altitude of the city/living area) and assess whether these have an impact on 
 
93 
 
 
 
 
loyalty and engagement levels with the brands. Many subcultures associated with the altitude 
of the cities where consumers live and the cultural influence of migrants who come from 
these latitudes are recognized in Latin America. There is the Andean culture, at cities with 
altitudes over 2000 meters, the Caribbean culture which is related to cities near sea level, and 
an Anglo-European culture associated with very high cultural influence from European 
countries such as Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, and England. 
Given the dynamic nature of consumer behaviors, strengthened by the digital media 
that has changed dramatically the brand interaction with consumers, it is suggested to conduct 
a cross sectional study, to apply the analysis of media consumption once per year and 
evaluate the changes of habits through time. It is also necessary to define the extent of the 
social impact that networks have on populations beyond post-millennials and millennials, 
intending to analyze the way that these generations have been adopting new media to their 
lifestyle, and therefore requiring to measure their effect. 
The opinions, recommendations and positive/negative experiences on durable goods, 
expressed through networks, led the consumers to consider buying without being exposed to 
any previous advertising about those products. 
In accordance to this, an analysis of consumer behaviors related to mass consumer 
products, which still require to be exposed in different ways to attain their objective of being 
purchased and become a customer’s selection, is recommended. It is also suggested to 
evaluate consumers’ behavior in the digital media, using techniques of social network 
analysis, aimed towards determining influencers’ roles, communication flows among network 
members, and reactions to changes behavioral inductors. 
 
94 
 
 
 
 
References 
 
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. Free 
Press. 
Aaker, D. A., Dumer, and Day G. S. (1997). Marketing Research. John Wiley and Sans Inc. 
 
6ta. Edition, Vol. 54 No. 1, 27-42. 
 
Anderson C., and Wolff M. (2010). The web is dead. Long live the internet. 
 
Arnould, E. J., and Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years 
of Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882. doi:10.1086/426626 
Assael, H. (1992). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent. 
Bagozzi, R. P. (Ed.). (1994). Principles of marketing research (pp. 386-422). Cambridge, 
MA: Blackwell. 
 
Balan, C. (2014). Consumer Behavior in the Digital Era-Evidence from Romanian Market. 
 
Journal of Economics and Management, 15, 5-24. 
 
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., and Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer 
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of consumer research, 15(4), 473- 
481. 
Bendapudi, N., and Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation 
in co-production. Journal of marketing, 67(1), 14-28. 
Berger, I. E., and Mitchell, A. A. (1989). The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, 
attitude confidence, and the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer 
Research, 16(3), 269-279. 
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., McCarthy, I., and Kates, S. M. (2007). When customers get clever: 
Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 
50(1), 39-47. 
 
95 
 
 
 
 
Boston Consulting Group. (2012). The Millennial Consumer: Debunking Stereotypes. 
 
Retrieved from http://www.bcgperspectives.com. 
 
Cabrera Rios, N, (2015). Lecture on Applied Analytics Using SAS Enterprise Miner. Personal 
Collection of N. Cabrera Rios, SAS Institute Inc., Cary North Carolina, USA. 
Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., and Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Expectations and norms in models 
of consumer satisfaction. Journal of marketing Research, 24(3), 305-314. 
Carfi, C. (2011). The social customer manifesto. Retrieved from 
www.socialbusinessnews.com/author/chris-carfi 
Chamberlain, M. A. (1994). New technologies in health communication: Progress or 
panacea?. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(2), 271-284. 
Clark, P. A., and Staunton, N. (1989). Innovation in technology and organization. London: 
Routledge. 
Consoli, D., and Elche, D. (2012). Evolution of knowledge and the labor market in business 
services. Industrial Economy. 
Court, D., Elzinga, D., Mulder, S., and Vetvik, O. J. (2009, June). The consumer decision 
journey. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business- 
functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-consumer-decision-journey 
De Chernatony, L., and McDonald, M. (1992). Creating powerful brands: the strategic route 
to success in consumer, industrial, and service markets. Butterworth-Heinemann. 
De Mooij, M. (2003). Convergence and divergence in consumer behaviour: implications for 
global advertising. International Journal of advertising, 22(2), 183-202. 
Deighton, J., and Barwise, H. (2000). Marketing and Seduction: Building Exchange 
relationships by managing social consensus. Journal of consumer research, 21 
(March), 660-876. 
 
96 
 
 
 
 
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística [National Department of Statistics in 
Colombia] (DANE). (2011). Archivo Nacional de Datos. [Data file] Retrieved 
December 2013, from DANE database. 
Dick, A. S., and Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual 
framework. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 22(2), 99-113. 
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1997). The changing dynamic of consumer behavior: 
implications for cross-cultural research. International journal of research in 
marketing, 14(4), 379-395. 
Drell, L. (October 25, 2011). Social consumers and the science of sharing. Mashable. 
 
Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2011/10/25/social-consumer- sharing-info 
graphic/ 
Edelman, D. C. (2010a, December). Branding in the digital age: You’re spending your money 
in all the wrong places. Harvard Business Review, the Magazine, 12(April), 120- 
135. 
Edelman, D. C. (2010b). New Study Shows that for Millennial’s, Taking Action on Behalf 
of Brands is a Core Value [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www. 
edelman.com/news/new-study-shows-that-for-millennials-taking-action-on-behalf of 
brands-is a-core-value/ 
Edwards, S. M. (2011). A social media mindset. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 1- 
3. 
Ellis, K. (2010). Be who you want to be the philosophy of Facebook and the construction of 
identity. Screen Education, (58), 36-41. Retrieved from 
http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? 
direct=trueanddb=ufhandAN=51533387andsite=ehost-live 
 
97 
 
 
 
 
Forrester, R. (2007). Measuring the total economic impact of customer engagement. 
 
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer 
research. Journal of consumer research, 24 (March). 43-73. 
Fredin, E. S., and David, P. (1998). Browsing and the hypermedia interaction cycle: A model 
of self-efficacy and goal dynamics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 
75(1), 35-54. 
Fry, D. L., and McCain, T. A. (1983). Community influentials' media dependence in dealing 
with a controversial local issue. Journalism Quarterly, 60(3), 458-542. 
Garretson, G. (2008). Desiderata for linguistic software design. International Journal of 
English studies. 8: 1, 67-94. 
Geraci, J. C. (2004). Millennials-the new generation. World Advertising Research Center. 
Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage. 
Greenleigh, I. (January 2012). Talking to strangers. How social influences 
millennials shopping decisions. Retrieved from 
http://www.bazaarvoice.com/blog/2012/01/24/infographic-millennials- 
will-change-the-way-you-sell/ 
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY: 
McGraw-Hill. 
Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., and Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in 
exchange. The Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78-92. 
Hanlon, P., and Hawkins, J. (2008). Expand you brand community online. Advertising Age, 
79(1), 14-15. Retrieved from 
http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp 
x?direct=trueanddb=ufhandAN=28225980andsite=ehost-live 
 
98 
 
 
 
 
Hanna, R, Rohm, A, and Critenden, V. (2011). We’re all connected: the power of the social 
media ecosystem. Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. 
Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural Complexity, New York: Columbia University Press. 
 
Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., and Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks 
with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann. 
Hanzaee, K. H., and Asadollahi, A. (2012). Investigating the effect of brand equity and brand 
preference on purchase intention. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 
Engineering and Technology, 4(10), 1414-1423. 
Harris, R. (2009). Introduction to decision making. (2nd ed). 
 
Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the 
consumption experience. Service quality: New directions in theory and practice, 21, 
21-71. 
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. 
 
Hoyer, W. D., and Deborah. J. M. (1977). Consumer behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 
 
Huffman, C., and Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass 
confusion?. Journal of retailing, 74(4), 491-513. 
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., and Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions in 
social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on 
Facebook. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(5/6), 342-351. 
Internet World Research Foundation [IWS]. (2014). Internet penetration in Latam. 
Jacoby, J., and Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. 
Jade, Z. (2016, November 15). How to reach Millennials through influencer marketing [Blog 
post]. Retrieved from https://hireinfluence.com/blog/how-influencer-marketing- 
reaches-millennials/ 
 
99 
 
 
 
 
Jansen, B. J., and Mullen, T. (2008). Sponsored search: an overview of the concept, history, 
and technology. International Journal of Electronic Business, 6(2), 114-131. 
Joy, A., and Li, E. P. H. (2012). Studying consumption behaviour through multiple lenses: 
An overview of consumer culture theory. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1), 
141-173. 
Kalish, S. (1985). A new product adoption model with price, advertising, and 
uncertainty. Management science, 31(12), 1569-1585. 
Karpinski, R. (2005). The next phase: Bottom-up marketing. BtoB Magazine, 90(5), 38. 
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. 
Journal of marketing, Vol 57, No 1, 1-22. 
 
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Pearson Press. 
 
Keller, K. L., and Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and Branding: Research findings and 
future priorities. 
Khoo, D. (2014, September 25). How has the Internet changed consumers over the past 10 
years and how can marketers best adapt? [Blog post]. Retrieved from 
http://www.brandba.se/blog/2014/8/11/how-has-the-internet-changed-consumers- 
over-the-past-10-years-and-how-can-marketers-best-adapt 
Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management: Millennium edition, USA: Prentice Hall. 
Kruger, L. G. (2001). Digital Television: An Overview. Hauppauge, New York: Nova 
Publishers. 
 
Lancaster G. and Reynolds P. (2003). Marketing made simple. New York: Routledge 
Publishers. 
Lee, D. (2010). Growing popularity of social media and business strategy. SERI Quarterly, 
3(4), 112-117. 
 
100 
 
 
 
 
Lee, C., and Green, R. T. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral 
intentions model. Journal of international business studies, 22(2), 289-305. 
Lenartowicz, T., and Roth, K. (2001). Does subculture within a country matter? A cross- 
cultural study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. Journal of 
International Business Studies, 32(2), 305-325. 
Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., and Weinberger, D. (2000). The clue train manifesto. 
 
Pearson Education: London. 
 
Levy, M. R., and Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual 
clarification and exploration. Communication research, 11(1), 51-78. 
Lichtenstein, A., and Rosenfeld, L. B. (1983). Uses and misuses of gratifications research An 
explication of media functions. Communication Research, 10(1), 97-109. 
Likert, R. (1932). A technique of measurement of attitudes. 
 
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office 
revenue.  Journal of Marketing, 70, 74-89. 
Lynch, M., and McConatha, D. (2006). Hyper-symbolic interactionism: prelude to a 
refurbished theory of symbolic interaction or just old wine? Sociological 
Viewpoints, Spring 2006, Vol. 22, 87-96, 10. Retrieved from 
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer 
? d=9a83f789-ffbb-4d09-ad33 
69f906fba08e%40sessionmgr14andvid=44andhid=110 
Martinka, L. (2012). How social media communities impact consumer behavior. Gonzaga 
University. 
McPherson, M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. 
 
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press: Chicago. 
 
101 
 
 
 
 
Miller, D. (1995). Acknowledging consumption. London 
 
Monroe, K. (1993). Editorial [Editorial]. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), i-v. 
Moody, D. (2002). Empirical Research Methods. Monash University: Australia. 
Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the 
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. University of 
Calgary: Canada. 
Moriarty, R. (2004, February 8). Marketers target savvy “Y” spenders: Hip imagery, 
sophisticated sales pitches, web sites are designed to appeal to youth. The Post 
Standard. 
NCSS (2015). Principal components analysis. Retrieved from https://ncss-wpengine.netdna- 
ssl.com/wp- 
content/themes/ncss/pdf/Procedures/NCSS/Principal_Components_Analysis.pdf 
Neuborne, E. (1999, February 15). Generation Y Today's teens – the biggest bulge since the 
boomers – may force marketers to toss their old tricks. Business Week. 
O’Reilly, T. (2004). What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next 
generation of software. 
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of marketing, 63, pp. 33-44. 
 
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups (2nd 
Ed). Harvard Economic Studies. 
Omnicom Media Group. (2014). Media consumption trends in Columbia. 
 
Palda, Kristian S. (1966). The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects. A partial Evaluation. 
 
Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (1), 13-24. 
 
Parker, P. M., & Tavassoli, N. T. (2000). Homeostasis and consumer behavior across 
cultures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(1), 33-53. 
 
102 
 
 
 
 
Pasovac, S. S, Sanbonmatsu D., and Fazio, R. H. (1997). Considering the best choice: effects 
of salience and accessibility of alternatives on attitude-decision consistency. Journal 
of Personality and social psychology, 72(2), 253-261. 
Pattison, P., and Robins, G. L. (2002). Neighborhood based models for social networks, 
 
Sociological Methodology, Vol 22, 301-337. 
 
Peppers, D., and Rogers M. (1993). The One to One Future: Building Relationships one 
consume at a time. 
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in 
value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14. 
Price, L. L., and Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: service provider-client 
relationships in context. The Journal of Marketing, 38-56. 
Reinartz, W., Thomas, J. S., and Kumar, V. (2005). Balancing acquisition and retention 
resources to maximize customer profitability. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 63-79. 
Rodríguez, E. D. (2014). Consumer Empowerment in the Internet Generation. Retrieved from 
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/281870113701964/Consumer%20Emp 
owerment%20in%20the%20Internet%20Generatio%20by%20Eric%20Diaz%20Rod 
riguez.pdf 
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York, NY. 
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th Ed.). 
Ruggiero, T. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication 
and Society, 3, 3–37. 
Rundle-Thiele, S., and Bennett, R. (2001). A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand 
loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product 
and Brand Management, 10(1), 25-37. 
 
103 
 
 
 
 
Salomon, M., Bamossy, G. Askegaard, S., and Hogg, M. K. (2006). Consumer Behavior. 
 
Prentice Hall: USA. 
 
Sawhney, M. S., and Kotler, P. (2001). Marketing in the Age of Information Democracy. In 
 
D. Iacobucci (Ed.), Kellogg on Marketing (pp. 386–408). New York: Wiley. 
 
Schwartz C.E, Snidman, N., and Kagan, J. (1992). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome 
of inhibited temperament in childhood. Vol 38. 
Sebor, J. (2006). Y me. Customer Relationship Management, 10(11), 24-27. Retrieved from 
http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Editorial/Magazine-Features/Y-Me- 
42331.aspx 
Sheth, J. N. (1968). A factor analytical model of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing 
Research, 5, 395-404. 
Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers’ responses to customized offers: Conceptual 
framework and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 32-45. 
Singer, J. B. (1998). Online journalists: Foundations for research into their changing roles. 
Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 4(1), 0-0. 
Steenkamp J-B.E.M, and Burgess, S. M. (2002). Optimum stimulation level and exploratory 
 
consumer behavior in an emerging consumer market. International Journal of 
research in marketing, 19(2), 131-150. 
Stephen, A. T., and Galak, J. (October 2012). The effects of traditional and social earned 
media on sales: A study of a micro lending marketplace. Journal of Marketing 
Research, p.625. 
Thomke, S., and Von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as innovators: a new way to create value. 
 
Harvard business review, 80(4), 74-85. 
 
104 
 
 
 
 
US Census Bureau. (2013, December). International Data Base [Data file]. Retrieved from: 
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php 
Vakratas, D., and Ambler, T. (1996). How advertising works: what do we really know. 
 
Journal of marketing. Vol 63, No. 1, 26-43, 
 
Vargo, S., and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolution toward a new dominant logic for marketing. 
 
Journal of Marketing (January), 1-17. 
 
Visa USA. (2012). Engaging Tomorrow’s Consumer [Press Release]. Retrieved from 
http://corporate.visa.com/newsroom/press-releases/press724.jsp 
Ward, S., and Robertson, T. S. (1973), Consumer Behavior, Theoretical Sources. Englewood 
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 
Wasserman, T. (2011). Audi has the most engaged fans on Facebook. Mashable. Retrieved 
from http://mashable.com/2011/04/22/audis-facebook-bieber/ 
Weinberg, B. D., Pehlivan, E. (2011). Social spending: Managing the social media mix. 
 
Business Horizons, 54, 275-282. 
 
Wilkie, W. L. (1999). Marketing contributions to society. Journal of marketing, 63. 198-218. 
Williams, T. G. (2002). Social Class Influences on Purchase Evaluation Criteria. Journal of 
Consumer Marketing, Vol: 19, 249-276. 
 
Wind, J., and Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization: the next revolution in mass 
customization. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(1), 13-32. 
Wood, M. B. (2004). Marketing planning: principles into practice. Prentice Hall. 
 
Yakup, D., Mucahit, C., and Reyhan, O. (2011). The impact of cultural factors on the 
consumer buying behaviors examined through and empirical study. International 
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), p.109. 
 
105 
 
 
 
 
Yarrow, K., and O’Donnell, J. (2009). Gen Buy: How Tweens, Teens and Twenty- 
Something’s are revolutionizing Retail. Jossey-Bass. 
You and Stone (2009). One Young World: Phase 3 Research Findings. 
 
Yu, J. (2012). Earned media rising-the earned media ripple effect. Column: Social media 
 
106 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A: Colombian Media Affinity Survey 
 
 
 
 CUESTIONARIO # 
 
ENCUESTA DE AFINIDAD DEL CONSUMIDOR DE COLOMBIA MEDIA     
 
  
 
 
 DD MM AAAA Hora  Hora  H:MM: 
 Militar  Militar  SS 
Fecha   2014 Hora inicio : Hora finalización : Duración : : 
  
Buenos días, tardes, noches,  mi nombre es… (CITE SU NOMBRE),  trabajo para DuGon, empresa dicada a investigar a 
través de encuestas las opiniones de personas como usted sobre diferentes temas. En la actualidad estamos realizando un 
estudio sobre afinidad del consumidor con los medios de comunicación en Colombia. Me puede colaborar respondiendo 
unas preguntas. 
Los datos suministrados serán utilizados para fines específicos de gestión del estudio en mención. Garantizamos manejar la 
confidencialidad de su identidad, de acuerdo a los lineamientos del código de ética de ESOMAR por el cual nos regimos. 
 
ATENCIÓN ENCUESTADOR  EN EL CASO EN QUE EL ENTREVISTADO TENGA 14 A 17 AÑOS SOLICITE 
HABLAR CON UN ADULTO RESPONSABLE Y LEA LO SIGUIENTE: 
 
Como parte de nuestro trabajo profesional queremos pedirle su autorización para entrevistar al menor de edad. 
Le agradecería que, para darle más confianza al joven/jovencita, usted nos acompañe durante la aplicación de la encuesta. 
Tenga en cuenta que la encuesta debe ser contestada por el menor de edad. Por favor, no le ayude ni le recuerde respuestas. 
No hay respuestas buenas ni malas, sólo nos interesa saber lo que el menor de edad piensa. 
 
Por favor, es tan amable de firmar aquí como constancia de que usted autoriza al menor de edad para que responda la 
encuesta. 
 
Nombre y firma del adulto responsable:    
 
Parentesco:    
 
Número de identificación:    
 
DATOS DE CLASIFICACIÓN  
¿De qué estrato llegan los recibos de servicios públicos en su hogar? (RU) 
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
CONTINÚE 
 
¿Cuál es su edad exacta? / / (ENC: REGISTRE EDAD EXACTA, RU) 
 
Menos de 14 años 1 TERMINE 
De 14 a 18 años 2 CONTINÚE 
De 19 a 24 años 3 CONTINÚE 
De 25 a 29 años 4 CONTINÚE 
De 30 a 34 años 5 CONTINÚE 
De 35 a 49 años 6 CONTINÚE 
Más de 50 años 7 CONTINÚE 
 
ENC: TENGA EN CUENTA QUE LOS ENTREVISTADOS DE 14 A 18 AÑOS DE EDAD NO SE 
LE DEBE PREGUNTAR POR EL CAPITULO DE BEBIDAS ALCOHOLICAS, APARATOS 
ELECTRÓNICOS PARA EL HOGAR Y AUTOMÓVILES EN CUANTO A COMPRA EN ALGUN 
MOMENTO, EN LOS ULTIMOS 3 MESES, LA PREFERIDA Y VOLVERIA A COMPRAR. 
 
GÉNERO  
 
107 
 
 
 
 
Masculino 1 
Femenino 2 
 
F1 ¿Usted cuántas horas al día está conectado a la Internet? (ENC: REGISTRE, RU) 
 
HORAS RU  
Menos de 1 hora 1 TERMINE 
Entre 1 a 2 horas 2 CONTINÚE 
Entre 3 a 4 horas 3 CONTINÚE 
Más de 4 horas 4 CONTINÚE 
Ninguna  TERMINE 
F.2 De las siguientes opciones por favor indique… ¿cuál es el uso que le da usted a internet? (ENC: REGISTRE, RM) 
 
USO RM  
Redes Social 1 CONTINÚE 
Búsqueda de Información 2 CONTINÚE 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 CONTINÚE 
Correo Electrónico 4 CONTINÚE 
Ninguna 5 TERMINE 
 
MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN  
 
1. De los siguientes medios de comunicación ¿con cuáles tiene contacto habitualmente? ENC: LEER OPCIONES, 
RM) 
 
  Varias Al menos Al  
Varias 
veces a una vez a menos Ocasionalmente 
Medios de comunicación Diariamente veces al 
la la una vez 
mes 
semana semana al mes 
Programas de televisión nacional 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Programas de televisión Regional       
(Telecaribe, Telepacífico, 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
Teleantioquia, Canal Capital, 
Citytv, otros) 
Programas de televisión por 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
cable o satelital 
Emisoras de radio 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Diarios / periódicos Nacionales 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Diarios / periódicos Regionales 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Revistas 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Vallas / letreros / Publicidad 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
exterior 
Internet 1 2 3 4 5 6 
 
2. Por favor, califique  en una escala  de 1 a 5, donde 1 es nada importante y 5 muy importante, ¿Cuál de los 
siguientes medios de comunicación con los que tiene contacto es más importante para usted? (ENC: MENCIONE 
SÓLO LOS MEDIOS QUE  NOMBRÓ EN P1, RM) 
Nada    Muy Medios de comunicación 
importante importante 
Programas de televisión nacional 1 2 3 4 5 
Programas de televisión Regional (Telecaribe, 
1 2 3 4 5 
Telepacífico, Teleantioquia, Canal Capital, Citytv, otros) 
Programas de televisión por cable o satelital 1 2 3 4 5 
Emisoras de radio 1 2 3 4 5 
Diarios / periódicos Nacionales 1 2 3 4 5 
Diarios / periódicos Regionales 1 2 3 4 5 
Revistas 1 2 3 4 5 
Vallas / letreros / Publicidad exterior 1 2 3 4 5 
 
108 
 
 
 
 
Internet 1 2 3 4 5 
 
BEBIDAS ALCOHOLICAS  
 
3. ¿Qué marcas de trago conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE 
PRIMERA MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
4. De las marcas de trago  que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P3 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
5. ¿Qué marcas de trago ha comprado para Usted en algún momento(RM) 
6. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses (RM) 
7. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha consumido, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar una 
marca de trago  para usted, ¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? 
(ENC: REGISTRE 1 PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN 
COLUMNA ORDEN 
8. ¿Cuál es la marca de trago que Usted prefiere (RU) 
9. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
ENC: TENGA EN CUENTA QUE A LOS ENTREVISTADOS DE 14 A 18 AÑOS DE EDAD 
NO SE LE DEBE PREGUNTAR DE LA P5 HASTA LA P17 
 
 P3 P6  P9 
P4 P5 P8 
Últimos 3 P7 Volvería a 
MARCAS TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden Comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Chivas Regal 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Buchanans 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Johnnie Walker 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Old Parr 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Something Special 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Jack Daniel’s 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Cerveza Póker 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Cerveza Águila 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Cerveza Águila Light 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Cerveza Costeña 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Cerveza Pilsen 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Club Colombia 12 12 12 12 12  12 12 
Cerveza Redds 13 13 13 13 13  13 13 
Aguardiente 
14 14 14 14 14  14 14 
Antioqueño 
Aguardiente Néctar 15 15 15 15 15  15 15 
Ron Bacardi 16 16 16 16 16  16 16 
Ron Viejo de Caldas 17 17 17 17 17  17 17 
Ron Santa fe 18 18 18 18 18  18 18 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
 ENC: PASE A Ninguna 97 97 97  97 97 
P17 
 
109 
 
 
 
 
10. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de trago para usted? (ENC: 
LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 P10 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del product 3 
Variedad del trago 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrine 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
11. Si  su  red  social  tiene  publicidad  de  su  marca  preferida  ¿influiría  en  su  decisión  de  compra?  (ENC: 
ESPONTANÉA, RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
12. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente sus compras de bebidas alcohólicas? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
13. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar las bebidas alcohólicas que usted consume? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
14. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
15. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
110 
 
 
 
 
 
16. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
17. ¿De qué marcas de tragos recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
18. De las marcas de tragos de las que recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, 
leyó o escuchó? (ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P17, RM) 
19. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
 PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P17, RU POR MARCA) 
 P17 P18 (RM) P19 (RU) 
 
 
TOM Otras 
 (RU) (RM) 
 
Chivas Regal 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Buchanans 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Johnnie Walker 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Old Parr 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Something Special 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Jack Daniel’s 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cerveza Póker 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cerveza Águila 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cerveza Águila Light 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cerveza Costeña 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cerveza Pilsen 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Club Colombia 12 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cerveza Redds 13 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Aguardiente 7 
 14 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 1 2 3 
Antioqueño  
Aguardiente Néctar 15 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ron Bacardi 16 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ron Viejo de Caldas 17 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ron Santa fe 18 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?             
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
 No sabe / no 
99 99 
 responde 
 Ninguna 97 97 
 
 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P18 INTERNET CONTINUÉ, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P21 
 
20. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
Por terceros 
Nada 
impactante 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
111 
 
 
 
 
 
ALIMENTOS  
 
21. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
22. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P21 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
23. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
24. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
25. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
26. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
27. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P21 P24  P27 
P22 P23 P26 
Últimos 3 P25 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Margarita 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Quaker 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Fruco 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Maizena 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Maggi 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Rama 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Alpina 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Colanta 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Bom bom bum 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Jet 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Saltin Noel 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Ducales 12 12 12 12 12  12 12 
Festival 13 13 13 13 13  13 13 
Yupi 14 14 14 14 14  14 14 
Papas Fritas súper 
15 15 15 15 15  15 15 
Ricas 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
 ENC: PASE A Ninguna 97 97 97  97 97 
P34 
 
28. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de alimentos para usted? 
(ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P28 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca del alimento 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del product 3 
Variedad del alimento 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrine 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
 
112 
 
 
 
 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97  
 
 
29. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente sus alimentos? (ENC: : LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
30. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar los alimentos que usted consume? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
31. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
32. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
33. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
34. ¿De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
35. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN 34, RM) 
 
113 
 
 
 
 
36. 
37. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P34, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P34 P35 (RM) P36 RU) 
 
 
TOM Otras 
 (RU) (RM) 
 
Margarita 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Quaker 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Fruco 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Maizena 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Maggi 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Rama 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Alpina 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Colanta 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Bom bom bum 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Jet 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Saltin Noel 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ducales 12 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Festival 13 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Yupi 14 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Papas Fritas súper 
 15 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ricas  
 Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)? 
 No sabe / no 
99 99 
 responde 
 Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P35 INTERNET CONTINUE, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P38 
 
38. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
BEBIDAS  
 
39. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
40. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P38 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
41. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
42. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
43. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
44. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
Por terceros 
Nada 
impactante 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
114 
 
 
 
 
 
45. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P38 P41  P44 
P39 P40 P43 
Últimos 3 P42 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Pepsi 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Gatorade 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Coca-cola (Cuatro,         
fanta, Sprite, Fuze te, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 
Del valle) 
Gaseosas Postobon         
(Naranja, manzana, 
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
uva, colombiana, 
Limonada, Freskola) 
Jugos hit 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Jugos TuTi Frutti 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Fitness 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Nesquik 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Ades (jugos – Leche) 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Chocolisto 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no responde 99 99  99 99  99 99 
ENC: PASE 
Ninguna 97 97  97  97 97 
A P51 
 
46. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de bebida para usted? (ENC: 
LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P45 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de la bebida 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de la bebida 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
47. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente en sus compras las bebidas? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
 
115 
 
 
 
 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
48. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar las bebidas que usted consume? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
49. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
50. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
51. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
52. ¿De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
53. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN 51, RM) 
54. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P51, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P51 P52 (RM) P53 (RU) 
 
 
TOM Otras 
 (RU) (RM) 
 
Pepsi 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Gatorade 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Coca-cola (Cuatro,              
fanta, Sprite, Fuze 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
te, Del valle)              
Gaseosas Postobon              
(Naranja, manzana,  4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
uva, colombiana,  4
Limonada, Freskola) 
Jugos hit 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Jugos TuTi Frutti 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Fitness 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Nesquik 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ades (jugos – Leche) 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Chocolisto 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)? 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
Por terceros 
Nada 
impactante 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
116 
 
 
 
 
No sabe / no 
99 99 
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P52 INTERNET CONTINUÉ, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P55 
 
55.  ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
CUIDADO PERSONAL  
 
56. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
57. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P55 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
58. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
59. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
60. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
61. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
62. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P55 P58  P61 
P56 P57 P60 
Últimos 3 P59 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Gillete 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Oral B 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Pantene 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Johnson and 
4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Johnson 
Listerine 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Speed Stick 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Protex 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Colgate 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Rexona 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Pond´s 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Nivea 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Nosotras 12 12 12 12 12  12 12 
Kotex 13 13 13 13 13  13 13 
Dove 14 14 14 14 14  14 14 
Sedal 15 15 15 15 15  15 15 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)? 17        
No sabe/no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
 ENC: PASE A Ninguna 97 97 97  97 97 
P68 
 
117 
 
 
 
 
63. LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P65 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
64. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente en sus compras de cuidado personal ? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
65. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar los productos de cuidado personal que usted consume? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
66. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
67. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
68. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
118 
 
 
 
 
 
69. ¿De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
70. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P68, RM) 
71. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P68, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P68  P69 (RM) P70 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Gillete 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Oral B 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Pantene 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Johnson and 7 
4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 1 2 3 
Johnson 
Listerine 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Speed Stick 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Protex 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Colgate 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Rexona 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Pond´s 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Nivea 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Nosotras 12 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Kotex 13 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Dove 14 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Sedal 15 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P69 INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P72 
 
72. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
CUIDADO DEL HOGAR  
 
73. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
74. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P72 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
75. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
76. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
77. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
78. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
119 
 
 
 
 
 
79. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P72 P75  P78 
P73 P74 P77 
Últimos 3 P76 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Ace 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Fab 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Ariel 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Salvo 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Axion 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Ajax 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Fabuloso 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Suavitel 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Clorox 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Blancox 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Vanish 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
 ENC: PASE A Ninguna 97 97 97  97 97 
P85 
80. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de productos de cuidado del 
hogar? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P79 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
81. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente en sus compras de productos del cuidado del hogar? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, 
RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
120 
 
 
 
 
 
 
82. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar los productos de cuidado del hogar? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
83. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
84. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
85. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
86. ¿De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
87. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN 85, RM) 
88. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P85, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P85  P86 (RM) P87 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Ace 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Fab 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ariel 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Salvo 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Axion 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ajax 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Fabuloso 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Suavitel 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Clorox 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Blancox 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Vanish 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?              
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
121 
 
 
 
 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P86 INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P89 
 
89. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
APARATOS ELECTRÓNICOS PERSONALES  
 
90. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
91. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P89 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
92. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
93. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
94. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
95. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
96. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P89 P92  P95 
P90 P91 P94 
Últimos 3 P93 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Apple 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Samsung 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Alcatel 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Nokia 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Sony 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Hewlett Packard 
6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
(hp) 
Lg 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Motorola 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Panasonic 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
DELL 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Toshiba 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Lenovo 12 12 12 12 12  12 12 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
ENC: PASE A 
Ninguna 97 97  97  97 97 
P102 
 
122 
 
 
 
 
97. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de aparatos electrónicos 
personales? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P96 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO 97 
 
98. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente en sus compras de aparatos electrónicos personales? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, 
RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
99. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar los aparatos electrónicos personales? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
100. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
101. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
102. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
103. ¿De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
 
123 
 
 
 
 
104. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P102, RM) 
105. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P102, RU POR MARCA) 
 P102  P103 (RM) P104 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Apple 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Samsung 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Alcatel 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Nokia 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Sony 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Hewlett Packard 
6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
(hp) 
Lg 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Motorola 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Panasonic 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
DELL 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Toshiba 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Lenovo 12 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P103  INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P106 
 
106. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
APARATOS ELECTRÓNICOS PARA EL HOGAR  
 
107. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
108. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P106 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
109. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
110. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
111. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
112. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
113. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
124 
 
 
 
 
ENC: TENGA EN CUENTA QUE A LOS ENTREVISTADOS DE 14 A 18 AÑOS DE EDAD 
NO SE LE DEBE PREGUNTAR DE LA P108 HASTA LA P119 
 
 P106 P109  P112 
P107 P108 P111 
Últimos 3 P110 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Mabe 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Whirlpool 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Haceb 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Lg 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Samsung 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
General Electric 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Panasonic 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Black and Decker 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Oster 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Kalley 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
ENC: PASE A 
Ninguna 97 97  97  97 97 
P119 
114. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de  aparatos electrónicos para 
el hogar? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P113 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
115. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente en sus compras de aparatos electrónicos para el hogar? (ESPONTÁNEO, RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
125 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
116. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar los aparatos electrónicos para el hogar? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
La manda a traer del exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
117. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
118. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
119. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
120. ¿De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
 
121. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P119, RM) 
122. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P119, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P119  P120 (RM) P121 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Mabe 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Whirlpool 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Haceb 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Lg 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Samsung 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
General Electric 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Panasonic 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Black and Decker 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Oster 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Kalley 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P120 INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P123 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
126 
 
 
 
 
 
 
123. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
PERFUMES  
 
124. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
125. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P123 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
126. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
127. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
128. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
129. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
130. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P123 P126  P129 
P124 P125 P128 
Últimos 3 P127 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Tommy Hilfiger 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Hugo Boss 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Lacoste 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Chanel 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Carolina Herrera 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Yanbal 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Esika 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Cyzone 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Avon 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
 ENC: PASE A Ninguna 97 97 97  97 97 
P136 
131. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca de perfumes? (ENC: LEA 
OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P130 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
 
127 
 
 
 
 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97  
132. ¿De qué manera paga nor malmente sus perfumes ? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, R M) 
 Efectivo 1 
 Tarjeta débito 2 
 Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
 Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
 Crédito / en cuotas 5 
 Bonos Sodex pass 6 
 Servientrega 7 
 Cheques posfechados 8 
 Botón PSE 9 
 Paypal 10 
 Otro, ¿cuál?  
  
133. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar perfumes? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
La manda a traer del exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
134. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
135. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
136. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
137. De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
138. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P136, RM) 
 
128 
 
 
 
 
139. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P136, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P136  P137 (RM) P138 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Tommy Hilfiger 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Hugo Boss 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Lacoste 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Chanel 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Carolina Herrera 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Yanbal 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Esika 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Cyzone 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Avon 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P137 INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P140 
 
140. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
 
PRENDAS DE VESTIR  
 
141. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
142. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P140 DE LA LISTA, RM) 
143. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
144. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
145. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
146. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
129 
 
 
 
 
147. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
 P140 P143  P146 
P141 P142 P145 
Últimos 3 P144 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Diesel 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
Americanino 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Gef 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Nike 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Levi´s 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Adidas 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Lec lee 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Tennis 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Pat – primo 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Zara 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Armi 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Pronto 12 12 12 12 12  12 12 
Punto Blanco 13 13 13 13 13  13 13 
Manpower 14 14 14 14 14  14 14 
Kenzo Jeans 15 15 15 15 15  15 15 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
 ENC: PASE A Ninguna 97 97 97  97 97 
P153 
148. De  los  siguientes  aspectos,  ¿cuáles  influyen  más  al  momento  de  comprar  prendas  de  vestir?  (ENC:  LEA 
OPCIONES, RM) 
 
ASPECTOS P147 Influyen (RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
149. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente sus prendas de vestir? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Tarjeta débito 2 
Tarjeta de crédito Entidades Financieras 3 
Tarjeta Crédito Marca Propia 4 
Crédito / en cuotas 5 
Bonos Sodex pass 6 
Servientrega 7 
Cheques posfechados 8 
Botón PSE 9 
Paypal 10 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
130 
 
 
 
 
 
 
150. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar sus prendas de vestir? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Tiendas en Centros Comerciales 1 
Almacenes de cadena (Éxito, Falabella,Jumbo, La Polar, etc.) 2 
Tiendas de barrio 3 
San andresitos 4 
Tiendas de saldos / Outlets 5 
Compra por Internet 6 
Lo pide en el exterior 7 
Droguerías 8 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
151. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
152. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
153. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
154. De qué marcas recuerda publicidad?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN 
EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
155. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P153, RM) 
156. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P153, RU POR MARCA) 
 P153  P154 (RM) P155 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Diesel 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Americanino 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Gef 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Nike 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Levi´s 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Adidas 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Lec lee 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Tennis 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Pat – primo 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Zara 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Armi 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Pronto 12 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Punto Blanco 13 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Manpower 14 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Kenzo Jeans 15 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?              
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
131 
 
 
 
 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P154 INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A P157 
 
157. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
 
AUTOMOVILES  
 
158. ¿Qué marcas conoce o ha oído mencionar?, ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, REGISTRE PRIMERA 
MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
159. De las marcas que le voy a leer, ¿cuáles conoce o ha oído mencionar? (ENC: MENCIONE SÓLO LAS 
MARCAS QUE NO NOMBRÓ EN P157  DE LA LISTA, RM) 
160. ¿Qué marcas ha comprado para Usted en algún momento? (RM) 
161. ¿Y cuáles compró en los últimos 3 meses? (RM) 
162. Centrados en las marcas que conoce y ha usado, si usted pudiera decidir en este momento el comprar para usted, 
¿cuál marca sería su primera opción?, ¿cuál sería la segunda y cuál la tercera opción? (ENC: REGISTRE 1 
PARA PRIMERA OPCIÓN, 2 PARA SEGUNDA Y 3 PARA TERCERA EN COLUMNA ORDEN) 
163. ¿Cuál es la marca que Usted prefiere? (RU) 
164. ¿Cuáles son las marcas que Usted volvería a comprar? (RM) 
 
ENC: TENGA EN CUENTA QUE A LOS ENTREVISTADOS DE 14 A 18 AÑOS DE EDAD 
NO SE LE DEBE PREGUNTAR DE LA P159 HASTA LA P170 
 
 
 P157 P160  P163 
P158 P159 P162 
Últimos 3 P161 Volvería a 
MARCA TOM Otras Ayudado Compradas Preferida 
meses Orden comprar 
(RU) (RM) (RM) (RM) (RU) 
(RM) (RM) 
Audi 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 
BMW 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 
Chevrolet 3 3 3 3 3  3 3 
Citroen 4 4 4 4 4  4 4 
Fiat 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 
Ford 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 
Honda 7 7 7 7 7  7 7 
Hyundai 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 
Kia 9 9 9 9 9  9 9 
Mazda 10 10 10 10 10  10 10 
Mercedes-Benz 11 11 11 11 11  11 11 
Nissan 12 12 12 12 12  12 12 
Peugeot 13 13 13 13 13  13 13 
Renault 14 14 14 14 14  14 14 
Toyota 15 15 15 15 15  15 15 
Volvo 16 16 16 16 16  16 16 
Volkswagen 17 17 17 17 17  17 17 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?         
No sabe / no 
99 99  99 99  99 99 
responde 
ENC: PASE A 
Ninguna 97 97  97  97 97 
P170 
 
132 
 
 
 
 
165. De los siguientes aspectos, ¿cuáles influyen más al momento de comprar una marca automóviles? (ENC: LEA 
OPCIONES, RM) 
 
 P164 
ASPECTOS Influyen 
(RM) 
Marca de los productos 1 
Publicidad de la marca 2 
Calidad del producto 3 
Variedad de los productos 4 
Precio 5 
Promociones 6 
Ubicación de los almacenes 7 
Exhibición en la vitrina 8 
Atención de los vendedores 9 
Facilidades de pago 10 
Recomendación amigos/ familiares 11 
Reconocimiento social 12 
NINGUNO (NO LEER) 97 
 
166. ¿De qué manera paga normalmente la compra de su vehículo? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Efectivo 1 
Transferencia 2 
Cheques posfechados 3 
Cheques de Gerencia 4 
Financiamiento al Banco 5 
Permuta 6 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
167. ¿Dónde acostumbra comprar su vehículo ? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, RM) 
Concesionarios 1 
Directamente 2 
Otro, ¿cuál?  
 
168. ¿Habla usted sobre la experiencia que tuvo con una de las marcas, con sus amigos y familiares? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
169. ¿Cuándo compra una marca y le gusta la recomienda a amigos y familiares para que la prueben? (RU) 
 
Si 1 
No 2 
 
170. Si su grupo de amigos /familiares le recomienda comprar una marca con la que ellos han tenido una excelente 
experiencia, ¿usted lo consideraría así nunca haya visto publicidad sobre ella? (RU) 
 Si 1 
 No 2 
171. ¿De  qué  marcas  recuerda  publicidad?,  ¿alguna otra? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA, 
REGISTRE PRIMERA MENCIÓN EN COLUMNA TOM Y EL RESTANTE EN OTRAS, RM) 
ENTREGUE TARJETA MEDIOS 
172. De las marcas recuerda publicidad, ¿en qué medio de los que aparecen en esta tarjeta la vio, leyó o escuchó? 
(ENC: MENCIONE CADA UNA DE LAS MARCAS QUE NOMBRÓ EN P170, RM) 
 
133 
 
 
 
 
173. Y la publicidad que recuerda en cada una de estas marcas le parece… (ENC: LEA OPCIONES PREGUNTE 
PARA CADA MARCA MENCIONADA EN P172, RU POR MARCA) 
 
 P170  P171 (RM) P172 (RU) 
   
MARCAS TOM Otras 
(RU) (RM) 
Audi 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
BMW 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Chevrolet 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Citroen 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Fiat 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Ford 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Honda 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Hyundai 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Kia 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Mazda 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Mercedes-Benz 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Nissan 12 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Peugeot 13 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Renault 14 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Toyota 15 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Volvo 16 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Volkswagen 17 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 
Otra(s), ¿cuál(es)?   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3  
No sabe / no 
99 99  
responde 
Ninguna 97 97 
 
ENC: SI DICE EN P171 INTERNET CONTINUÉ DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A DEMOGRÁFICOS 
 
174. ¿En qué lugares vio  la publicidad? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RM) 
 
Redes Sociales 1 
Búsqueda de Información 2 
Entretenimiento (YouTube, video, Películas, Música) 3 
Correo Electrónico 4 
DEMOGRÁFICOS  
 
175. Cuál es su estado civil? (RU) 
Soltero 1 
Casado 2 
Unión libre 3 
Divorciado / separado 4 
Viudo 5 
No responde (NO LEER) 99 
 
176. ¿Cuál es el máximo nivel de estudios que usted ha alcanzado hasta el momento? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RU) 
No ha estudiado 1 
Primaria 2 
Secundaria / Bachillerato 3 
Técnico / tecnológico 4 
Profesional 5 
Especialización / Postgrado 6 
Maestría / doctorado 7 
No responde (NO LEER) 99 
TV Nacional 
TV por Cable 
o satelital 
Radio 
Periódicos 
Revistas 
Internet 
Vallas / 
Letreros / 
Publicidad 
 
Por terceros 
 
Nada 
impactante 
 
Mas o menos 
impactante 
Muy 
impactante 
 
134 
 
 
 
 
 
177. ¿A qué actividad dedica la mayoría de su tiempo? (ENC: LEA OPCIONES, RU) 
Está sin empleo 1 
Ama de casa 2 
Empleado tiempo parcial 3 
Empleado tiempo completo 4 
Independiente 5 
No responde (NO LEER) 99 
178. Ciudad 
Bogotá 1 
Cali 2 
Medellín 3 
Barranquilla 4 
 
ENC: SOLICITE TODOS LOS SIGUIENTES DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO AL FINALIZAR LA ENCUESTA 
 
  TELÉFONO FIJO  
NOMBRE 
ENTREVISTADO TELÉFONO  
CELULAR 
DIRECCIÓN EXACTA  BARRIO  
ENC: LEA Y FIRME EL SIGUIENTE COMPROMISO FINALIZAR LA ENCUESTA 
 
Doy fé que la información consignada en este cuestionario es la que proporcionó el encuestado, de demostrarse lo 
contrario total o parcialmente será causal de anulación de mi trabajo y por ende el no pago del mismo. 
NOMBRE  
ENCUESTADOR 
DOCUMENTO DE  
IDENTIDAD 
 
135 
 
 
 
 
Appendix B: Latent Variables 
 
Media Drivers 
 
Table B1 
 
Media drivers’ total explained variance 
 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 3.614 40.155 40.155 3.614 40.155 40.155 
2 1.275 14.171 54.325    
3 .873 9.705 64.031    
4 .765 8.505 72.535    
5 .760 8.444 80.979    
6 .512 5.686 86.665    
7 .461 5.122 91.787    
8 .452 5.025 96.812    
9 .287 3.188 100.000    
 
 
Note. Extract ion method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B1. Media Drivers Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
136 
 
 
 
 
Awareness 
 
Table B2 
 
A1’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 3.579 35.794 35.794 3.579 35.794 35.794 
2 .929 9.286 45.080    
3 .886 8.859 53.939    
4 .833 8.332 62.271    
5 .770 7.700 69.971    
6 .715 7.146 77.117    
7 .641 6.406 83.523    
8 .599 5.986 89.508    
9 .554 5.544 95.053    
10 .495 4.947 100.000    
 
 
Note. Extract ion method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B2. A1 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
137 
 
 
 
 
Table B3 
 
A2’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 3,568 35,684 35,684 3,568 35,684 35,684 
2 1,340 13,402 49,086    
3 ,918 9,179 58,265    
4 ,849 8,489 66,754    
5 ,808 8,082 74,836    
6 ,575 5,752 80,589    
7 ,552 5,522 86,111    
8 ,513 5,135 91,245    
9 ,459 4,592 95,838    
10 ,416 4,162 100,000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B3. A2 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
138 
 
 
 
 
Table B4 
 
A3’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 5.976 59.760 59.760 5.976 59.760 59.760 
2 .658 6.582 66.342    
3 .586 5.862 72.204    
4 .559 5.587 77.791    
5 .465 4.653 82.443    
6 .411 4.111 86.554    
7 .371 3.711 90.265    
8 .360 3.604 93.870    
9 .327 3.270 97.139    
10 .286 2.861 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B4. A3 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
139 
Table B5 
Awareness’ total explained variance 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
 
1 1.470 48.992 48.992 1.470 48.992 48.992 
2 1.027 34.231 83.223 
3 .503 16.777 100.000 
 
 
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B5. Awareness Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
140 
 
 
 
 
Consideration 
 
 
Table B6 
 
C1’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 4.483 44.832 44.832 4.483 44.832 44.832 
2 1.071 10.706 55.538    
3 .791 7.910 63.448    
4 .721 7.210 70.658    
5 .636 6.356 77.015    
6 .539 5.385 82.400    
7 .504 5.043 87.443    
8 .461 4.613 92.057    
9 .408 4.082 96.139    
10 .386 3.861 100.000    
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B6. C1 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
141 
 
 
 
 
Table B7 
 
C3’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 6.231 62.311 62.311 6.231 62.311 62.311 
2 .669 6.690 69.001    
3 .605 6.053 75.054    
4 .529 5.294 80.347    
5 .431 4.311 84.658    
6 .363 3.632 88.290    
7 .356 3.555 91.846    
8 .325 3.251 95.097    
9 .267 2.668 97.764    
10 .224 2.236 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B7. C3 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
142 
 
 
 
 
Table B8 
 
Consideration’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 1.143 57.142 57.142 1.143 57.142 57.142 
2 .857 42.858 100.000    
 
 
Note. Extrac tion method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B8. Consideration Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
143 
 
 
 
 
Buy 
 
Table B9 
 
B1’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 3.805 38.046 38.046 3.805 38.046 38.046 
2 1.346 13.462 51.508    
3 .892 8.917 60.424    
4 .783 7.826 68.250    
5 .741 7.408 75.658    
6 .621 6.208 81.866    
7 .534 5.338 87.203    
8 .504 5.045 92.248    
9 .411 4.105 96.353    
10 .365 3.647 100.000    
 
 
Note. Extract ion method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B9. B1 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
144 
 
 
 
 
 
Table B10 
 
B2’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 4.588 45.881 45.881 4.588 45.881 45.881 
2 1.034 10.343 56.224    
3 .898 8.984 65.208    
4 .726 7.261 72.469    
5 .575 5.747 78.216    
6 .527 5.274 83.490    
7 .519 5.195 88.685    
8 .435 4.355 93.039    
9 .356 3.564 96.604    
10 .340 3.396 100.000    
 
 
Note. Extract ion method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B10. B2 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
145 
Table B11 
B3’s total explained variance 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 3.178 31.781 31.781 3.178 31.781 31.781 
2 1.148 11.480 43.261    
3 1.023 10.230 53.490    
4 .912 9.125 62.615    
5 .813 8.127 70.742    
6 .727 7.270 78.012    
7 .703 7.025 85.038    
8 .589 5.886 90.924    
9 .464 4.639 95.563    
10 .444 4.437 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B11. B3 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
146 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table B12 
 
Buy intent’s total explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
 
1 1.399 46.627 46.627 1.399 46.627 46.627 
2 1.020 34.002 80.629 
3 .581 19.371 100.000 
 
 
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B 12. Buy Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
147 
 
 
 
 
Loyalty 
 
Table B13 
 
L1’s explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 3.811 38.105 38.105 3.811 38.105 38.105 
2 1.354 13.538 51.644    
3 .873 8.731 60.375    
4 .786 7.857 68.232    
5 .744 7.436 75.668    
6 .621 6.206 81.874    
7 .534 5.337 87.211    
8 .503 5.028 92.239    
9 .411 4.108 96.347    
10 .365 3.653 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B13. L1 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
148 
 
 
 
 
Table B14 
 
L2’s explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 1.938 19.384 19.384 1.938 19.384 19.384 
2 1.651 16.512 35.896    
3 1.422 14.224 50.121    
4 1.054 10.545 60.666    
5 .976 9.756 70.422    
6 .743 7.427 77.848    
7 .736 7.360 85.208    
8 .556 5.564 90.772    
9 .530 5.305 96.077    
10 .392 3.923 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B14. L2 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
149 
 
 
 
 
Table B15 
 
L3’s explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 2.483 24.829 24.829 2.483 24.829 24.829 
2 1.184 11.840 36.669    
3 1.060 10.597 47.266    
4 .988 9.876 57.141    
5 .938 9.378 66.519    
6 .791 7.915 74.434    
7 .757 7.574 82.008    
8 .698 6.984 88.993    
9 .607 6.068 95.061    
10 .494 4.939 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B15. L3 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
150 
 
 
 
 
Table B16 
 
Loyalty’s explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
 
1 1.506 75.286 75.286 1.506 75.286 75.286 
2 .494 24.714 100.000 
 
 
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B16. Loyalty Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
151 
 
 
 
 
Engagement 
 
Table B17 
 
E1’s explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 5.393 53.930 53.930 5.393 53.930 53.930 
2 .991 9.911 63.841    
3 .866 8.664 72.506    
4 .704 7.039 79.544    
5 .604 6.040 85.584    
6 .487 4.872 90.456    
7 .377 3.771 94.227    
8 .282 2.815 97.042    
9 .207 2.067 99.110    
10 .089 .890 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eigenvalues 
 
152 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B17. E1 Segmentation 
Table B18 
E2’s explained variance 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 5.697 56.965 56.965 5.697 56.965 56.965 
2 .956 9.560 66.525    
3 .770 7.701 74.226    
4 .653 6.530 80.756    
5 .550 5.499 86.255    
6 .416 4.163 90.418    
7 .308 3.077 93.496    
8 .291 2.912 96.407    
9 .189 1.892 98.300    
10 .170 1.700 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
Eigenvalues 
 
153 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B18. E2 Segmentation 
 
154 
 
 
 
 
Table B19 
 
E3’s explained variance 
 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
1 6.348 63.476 63.476 6.348 63.476 63.476 
2 .700 7.004 70.481    
3 .662 6.619 77.099    
4 .619 6.186 83.285    
5 .420 4.198 87.483    
6 .355 3.546 91.030    
7 .271 2.708 93.737    
8 .243 2.427 96.164    
9 .219 2.189 98.353    
10 .165 1.647 100.000    
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B19. E3 Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
155 
 
 
 
 
Table B20 
 
Engagement’s explained variance 
 
 
 
 
Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Saturation Extraction 
  Accumulated Accumulated 
Component Total Variance % % Total Variance % % 
 
1 2.504 83.468 83.468 2.504 83.468 83.468 
2 .455 15.168 98.636 
3 .041 1.364 100.000 
 
 
Note. Extraction method: Principal Components Analysis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of components 
 
Figure B20. Engagement Segmentation 
Eigenvalues 
 
156 
 
 
 
 
Appendix C: Distribution of Frequencies 
 
Table C1 
 
 
Mass consumption goods  
   L1 Alcoholic beverages      L1 Food   
 1 2 3 4 5 1  2 3 4 5 
 Count Count Count Count Count Count  Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male 55  92 71 63 62  3 62 69 78 131 
 2.Female 132  129 87 68 42  2 63 90 93 210 
 Total 187  221 158 131 104  5 125 159 171 341 
SES groups Low 74  93 67 50 54  1 47 55 58 177 
 Medium 98  111 75 71 45  4 65 95 96 140 
 High 15  17 16 10 5  0 13 9 17 24 
 Total 187  221 158 131 104  5 125 159 171 341 
 Age-grousd Pre- 
Millennials 77 153 112 104 82 3 60 108 114 243 
Millennials 19 59 38 25 20 1 36 29 35 60 
Post-  91
mille nnials  9 8 2 2 1 29 22 22 38 
Total 187 221 158 131 104 5 125 159 171 341 
City 1.Bo gotá 66 108 102 68 54 1 39 109 105 144 
2.Cali 26 9 18 26 22 0 4 9 17 71 
3.Me dellín 69 45 31 32 26 3 17 25 41 117 
4.Barranquilla 26 59 7 5 2 1 65 16 8 9 
Total 187 221 158 131 104 5 125 159 171 341 
 
 
157 
 
 
 
 
 
 (continued) 
Table C1 (continued) 
 
 
    L1 Juices/beverages/tea     L1 Personal care   
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
Count  Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male  0  94 83 93 73 15 70 74 117 67 
 2.Female  3  109 113 135 98 8 70 101 152 127 
 Total  3  203 196 228 171 23 140 175 269 194 
SES groups Low  0  80 69 93 96 4 60 75 106 93 
 Medium  3  100 117 113 67 16 67 93 139 85 
 High  0  23 10 22 8 3 13 7 24 16 
 Total  3  203 196 228 171 23 140 175 269 194 
Age-grousd Pre- 
Millennials 3  126 129 162 108 3 72 126 178 149 
Millennials 0  42 45 44 30 4 37 34 57 29 
 Post-   
millennials 0 35 22 22 33 16 31 15 34 16 
 Total  3  203 196 228 171 23 140 175 269 194 
City 1.Bogotá  2  89 139 117 51 3 50 116 148 81 
 2.Cali  0  6 18 37 40 0 1 13 36 51 
 3.Medellín  0  29 33 67 74 20 23 31 76 53 
4.Barranquilla 1 
 79 6 7 6 0 66 15 9 9 
Total 3  203 196 228 171 23 140 175 269 194 
 
(continued) 
 
158 
 
 
 
 
Table C1 (continued) 
 
 
   L1 Home care products     L1 Perfumes   
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male 68  77 78 84 36 43 182 71 38 9 
 2.Female 43  62 120 134 99 22 244 95 81 16 
 Total 111  139 198 218 135 65 426 166 119 25 
SES groups Low 47  60 77 96 58 28 184 71 46 9 
 Medium 54  65 113 102 66 33 207 82 63 15 
 High 10  14 8 20 11 4 35 13 10 1 
 Total 111  139 198 218 135 65 426 166 119 25 
 Age-grousd Pre- 
Millennials 32 75 143 174 104 36 273 114 87 18 
Millennials 32 35 41 35 18 12 94 33 19 3 
Post- 
mille nnials
 47 29 14 9 13 17 59 19 13 4 
Total 111 139 198 218 135 65 426 166 119 25 
City 1.Bo gotá 39 53 129 121 56 34 220 84 54 6 
2.Cali 4 1 13 37 46 7 14 33 34 13 
3.Me dellín 67 20 34 55 27 18 113 40 28 4 
4.Barranquilla 1 65 22 5 6 6 79 9 3 2 
Total 111 139 198 218 135 65 426 166 119 25 
 
159 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C1 (continued) 
 
 
   L1 Massive Consume   
1 2 3 4 5 
Count Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male 31 96 74 79 63 
 2.Female 35 113 101 111 99 
 Total 66 209 175 189 162 
SES groups Low 26 87 69 75 81 
 Medium 35 103 96 97 70 
 High 5 19 11 17 11 
 Total 66 209 175 189 162 
Age-grousd Pre- 
Millennials 26 127 122 137 117 
Millennials 11 51 37 36 27 
 Post- 
millennials 29 32 17 17 18 
 Total 66 209 175 189 162 
City 1.Bogotá 24 93 113 102 65 
 2.Cali 6 6 17 31 41 
 3.Medellín 30 41 32 50 50 
4.Barranquilla 6 69 13 6 6 
Total 66 209 175 189 162 
 
160 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C2 
 
Durable goods 
 
 
L1 Electronics/computers L1 Furniture/appliances 
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male 45 185 81 26 6 112 143 52 34 2 
 2.Female 96 236 79 36 11 144 183 73 46 12 
 Total 141 421 160 62 17 256 326 125 80 14 
SES groups Low 68 179 66 17 8 128 123 55 28 4 
 Medium 64 210 78 39 9 119 174 57 42 8 
 High 9 32 16 6 0 9 29 13 10 2 
 Total 141 421 160 62 17 256 326 125 80 14 
 Age-grousd Pre- 
Millennials 70 278 117 53 10 85 249 107 74 13 
Millennials 19 102 29 8 3 73 69 15 4 0 
Post-  52
mille nnials  41 14 1 4 98 8 3 2 1 
Total 141 421 160 62 17 256 326 125 80 14 
City 1.Bo gotá 62 211 90 32 3 122 165 69 35 7 
2.Cali 15 32 36 12 6 32 20 24 21 4 
3.Me dellín 50 106 26 17 4 83 70 27 21 2 
4.Barranquilla 14 72 8 1 4 19 71 5 3 1 
Total 141 421 160 62 17 256 326 125 80 14 
 
161 
 
 
 
 
(continued) 
 
 
 
Table C2 (continued) 
 
 
 L1 
L1 Clothes Cars/motorcycles L1 Durable Goods 
 1 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 
 Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male 27 116 80 76 44 287 56 118 148 71 45 27 
2.Female 56 139 109 99 55 407 51 176 186 87 60 32 
Total 83 255 189 175 99 694 107 294 334 158 106 59 
SES groups Low 51 109 77 64 37 321 17 142 137 66 36 17 
Medium 28 128 98 95 51 335 65 137 171 78 59 33 
High 4 18 14 16 11 38 25 15 26 14 11 10 
Total 83 255 189 175 99 694 107 294 334 158 106 59 
Age-groups Pre- 56 153 131 122 66 434 94 Millennials  161  227  118  83  46 
Millennials 15 59 29 37 21 148 13  64  77  24  16  9 
 Post- 
 nnials 
 12  
mille  43 29 16 12 112 0 69 31 15 6 4 
 Total 83 255 189 175 99 694 107 294 334 158 106 59 
 City 1.Bogotá 43 
 108 107 90 50 336 62 141 161 89 52 31 
 2.Cal i 4 7 19 37 34 87 14 35 20 26 23 15 
 3.Med ellín 31 67 49 44 12 188 15 88 81 34 27 8 
 4.Barranquilla 5 73 14 4 3 83 16 30 72 9 3 6 
Total 83 255 189 175 99 694 107 294 334 158 106 59 
  
 
162 
 
 
163 
 
 
 
 
Table C3 
 
Internet hours 
 
 
 
 
How much time do you spend online  
per day?  
2. Between 1 and 2 hours 3. Between 3 and 4 hours 4. More than 4 hours 
 
Count % Percentage Count % Percentage Count % Percentage 
Gender 1.Male 139 37.4% 85 41.7% 119 52.9% 
 2.Female 233 62.6% 119 58.3% 106 47.1% 
 Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
Age_groups Pre-Millennials 303 81.5% 121 59.3% 104 46.2% 
 Millennials 44 11.8% 43 21.1% 74 32.9% 
 Post-millennials 25 6.7% 40 19.6% 47 20.9% 
 Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
SES_groups Low 173 46.5% 82 40.2% 83 36.9% 
 Medium 170 45.7% 103 50.5% 127 56.4% 
 High 29 7.8% 19 9.3% 15 6.7% 
 Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
Marital Status 1.Single 122 32.8% 113 55.4% 159 70.7% 
 2.Married 112 30.1% 48 23.5% 34 15.1% 
3.Common-law 
marriage 106 28.5% 32 15.7% 27 12.0% 
4.Divorced 
24 6.5% 7 3.4% 4 1.8% 
5.Widowed 8 2.2% 3 1.5% 1 .4% 
6.No answer 
0 0.0% 1 .5% 0 0.0% 
Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
Highest level of 1. No formal 
education schooling 0 0.0% 1 .5% 0 0.0% 
achieved 2. Elementary school 38 10.2% 5 2.5% 1 .4% 
3. High School 
Graduate 199 53.5% 80 39.2% 84 37.3% 
4.VoTech program 
83 22.3% 64 31.4% 73 32.4% 
5.Bachelor degree 46 12.4% 43 21.1% 57 25.3% 
 6. Master’s degree       
(1 year) 1 .3% 8 3.9% 8 3.6% 
7.Master’s/Doctorate 
degree 2 .5% 1 .5% 0 0.0% 
8.No answer 
3 .8% 2 1.0% 2 .9% 
Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
 
(continued) 
 
164 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C3 (continued) 
 
 
 
How much time do you spend 2. Between 1 and 2 hours 3. Between 3 and 4 hours 4. More than 5 hours 
online per day? % Percentage 
Count % Percentage Count Count % Percentage 
What is your 1.Unemployed  
main activity 31 8.3% 47 23.0% 39 17.3% 
2.Homemaker 79 21.2% 19 9.3% 8 3.6% 
3.Part-time      
Employee 32 8.6% 36 17.6% 25 11.1% 
4.Full tim e 
Employee 125 33.6% 59 28.9% 80 35.6% 
5.Indepen diente 92 worker 24.7% 34 16.7% 33 14.7% 
6.No answer 
4 1.1% 3 1.5% 9 4.0% 
7.Student 9 2.4% 6 2.9% 31 13.8% 
Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
City 1.Bogotá 194 52.2% 95 46.6% 109 48.4% 
2.Cali 49 13.2% 18 8.8% 34 15.1% 
3.Medellín  79 21.2% 79 38.7% 45 20.0% 
4.Barranq uilla 50 13.4% 12 5.9% 37 16.4% 
Total 372 100.0% 204 100.0% 225 100.0% 
165 
Table C4 
Internet use 
3.Entertainement
What is your internet usage?  1. Social 2.Searching (YouTube, videos, 
networks information Movies, Music) 4.E-mail 5.None
Count Count Count Count Count 
Gender 1.Male 279 231 239 206 0 
2.Female 375 313 306 261 1 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
Age_grouped Pre-Millennials 409 350 322 293 0 
Millennials 143 116 126 104 1 
Post-millennials 102 78 97 70 0 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
SES_grouped Low 280 214 242 174 0 
Medium 322 280 253 246 1 
High 52 50 50 47 0 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
Marital Status 1.Single 341 282 295 249 1 
2.Married 158 136 112 118 0 
3.Common-law
marriage 124 95 115 71 0 
4.Divorced
20 22 16 23 0 
5.Widowed 10 8 7 6 0 
6.No answer
1 1 0 0 0 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
Highest level of 1. No formal
education schooling 1 1 1 1 0 
achieved 2. Elementary school 29 23 27 15 0 
3. High School
Graduate 293 218 255 172 0 
4.VoTech program
184 165 138 143 1 
5.Bachelor degree 125 114 103 113 0 
6. Master’s degree (1
year) 14 16 12 16 0 
7.Master’s/Doctorate
degree 2 3 3 2 0 
8.No answer
6 4 6 5 0 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
 
166 
 
 
 
 
 (continued) 
Table C4 (continued) 
 
 
 
 
 
What is your internet usage?   3.Entertainement 
1. Social 2.Searching (YouTube, videos, 
networks information Movies, Music) 4.E-mail 5.None 
  Count Count Count Count Count 
What is 1.Unemployed  
your main  
activity 108 96 100 86 0 
 
 
2.Homemaker 84 60 65 46 0 
3.Part-time 
Employee 81 60 68 55 0 
4.Full time 
Employee 201 183 174 153 0 
5.Independiente 
worker 125 100 90 88 0 
6.No answer 
 14 12 11 13 1 
7.Student 
 41 33 37 26 0 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
City 1.Bogotá 
 316 282 261 243 1 
2.Cali 81 60 77 63 0 
3.Medellín 192 154 140 129 0 
4.Barranquilla 65 48 67 32 0 
Total 654 544 545 467 1 
 
 
 
167 
 
 
 
 
Table C5 
 
Purchase factors for alcoholic beverages 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  Gender Age-g roups   
consider at the moment of buying a brand of an alcoholic      
beverage? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials   Millennials Post-millennials Total 
01.Brand 191 236 427 323 92 12 427 
03.Product quality 195 213 408 301 94 13 408 
05.Price 140 147 287 209 69 9 287 
04.Beverage variety 71 63 134 107 26 1 134 
02.Brand Advertising 55 57 112 88 19 5 112 
06.Discounts 46 51 97 72 24 1 97 
11.Friends/Family advise 33 26 59 47 12 0 59 
07.Shops location 17 31 48 36 11 1 48 
12.Social recognition 22 22 44 32 8 4 44 
10.Payement ease 25 9 34 27 7 0 34 
09.Sellers service 19 11 30 21 9 0 30 
08.Shop window exhibition 14 11 25 21 4 0 25 
13.None (Not reading) (97) 2 6 8 7 1 0 8 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  SES groups  City   
consider at the moment of buying a brand of an alcoholic       
beverage? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
01.Brand 189 211 27 427 233 53 98 43 427 
03.Product quality 165 208 35 408 209 58 111 30 408 
05.Price 160 120 7 287 163 35 60 29 287 
04.Beverage variety 68 62 4 134 76 30 24 4 134 
02.Brand Advertising 46 59 7 112 68 27 10 7 112 
06.Discounts 47 47 3 97 52 21 12 12 97 
11.Friends/Family advise 34 23 2 59 25 14 15 5 59 
07.Shops location 20 23 5 48 27 16 2 3 48 
12.Social recognition 18 22 4 44 16 10 13 5 44 
10.Payement ease 16 16 2 34 20 8 5 1 34 
09.Sellers service 13 16 1 30 15 13 2 0 30 
08.Shop window exhibition 8 15 2 25 14 8 2 1 25 
 
168 
 
 
 
 
13.None (Not reading) (97) 3 5 0 8 4 1 3 0 8 
Table C6 
Purchase factors for food 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  Gender Age-g roups   
consider at the moment of buying a brand of food? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials    Millennials Post-millennials Total 
03.Product quality 228 322 550 372 105 73 550 
01.Brand 215 327 542 382 98 62 542 
05.Price 194 265 459 307 90 62 459 
06.Discounts 91 145 236 164 48 24 236 
04.Variety del alimento 91 134 225 159 47 19 225 
02.Brand advertising 62 103 165 119 24 22 165 
07.Shops location 28 62 90 64 19 7 90 
09.Sellers service 24 42 66 50 8 8 66 
11.Friends/Family advise 26 39 65 38 17 10 65 
08.Shops window exhibition 25 31 56 39 14 3 56 
10.Payement ease 19 29 48 32 9 7 48 
12.Social recognition 14 28 42 27 7 8 42 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 3 2 5 3 2 0 5 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  SES groups  City  
consider at the moment of buying a brand of food? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
03.Product quality 231 266 53 550 257 86 165 42 550 
01.Brand 221 287 34 542 271 66 151 54 542 
05.Price 247 193 19 459 223 80 110 46 459 
06.Discounts 125 100 11 236 128 67 28 13 236 
04.Variety del alimento 120 94 11 225 115 44 57 9 225 
02.Brand advertising 56 98 11 165 99 42 14 10 165 
07.Shops location 40 39 11 90 50 26 12 2 90 
09.Sellers service 21 35 10 66 35 20 8 3 66 
11.Friends/Family advise 35 26 4 65 32 18 15 0 65 
08.Shops window exhibition 30 19 7 56 22 18 14 2 56 
10.Payement ease 24 18 6 48 15 19 11 3 48 
12.Social recognition 18 19 5 42 14 15 10 3 42 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 3 1 1 5 2 2 1 0 5 
 
169 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C7 
 
Purchase factors for beverages 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  Gender Age-g roups   
consider at the moment of buying a brand of beverage? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total 
01.Brand 233 335 568 390 109 69 568 
03.Product quality 222 300 522 342 109 71 522 
05.Price 168 256 424 271 86 67 424 
04.Variety 92 138 230 152 49 29 230 
06.Discounts 90 104 194 132 34 28 194 
02.Brand advertising 78 105 183 133 26 24 183 
08.Shops window exhibition 19 40 59 41 13 5 59 
07.Shops location 18 38 56 35 13 8 56 
10.Payement ease 23 32 55 39 9 7 55 
09.Sellers service 23 26 49 33 9 7 49 
11.Friends/Family advise 17 29 46 28 12 6 46 
12.Social recognition 14 24 38 25 6 7 38 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  SES groups  City  
consider at the moment of buying a brand of beverage? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
01.Brand 239 291 38 568 285 72 152 59 568 
03.Product quality 221 249 52 522 242 80 164 36 522 
05.Price 224 182 18 424 201 78 98 47 424 
04.Variety 117 105 8 230 107 54 56 13 230 
06.Discounts 108 81 5 194 93 65 29 7 194 
02.Brand advertising 77 93 13 183 114 43 16 10 183 
08.Shops window exhibition 38 18 3 59 20 16 21 2 59 
07.Shops location 29 22 5 56 37 10 8 1 56 
10.Payement ease 22 27 6 55 22 19 13 1 55 
09.Sellers service 25 20 4 49 25 15 8 1 49 
11.Friends/Family advise 25 21 0 46 19 21 6 0 46 
 
170 
 
 
 
 
12. Social recognition 20 14 4 38 14 11 11
 2 38 
Table C8 
Purchase factors for personal care 
From the following. What are the main factors that Gender Age-groups 
 
you consider at the moment of buying a brand of   Pre-    
personal care product? 1.Male 2.Female Total Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total 
03.Product quality 227 332 559 374 112 73 559 
01.Brand 212 329 541 374 104 63 541 
05.Price 173 262 435 303 79 53 435 
06.Discounts 91 132 223 154 42 27 223 
02.Brand advertising 75 99 174 120 32 22 174 
04.Variety 61 105 166 118 29 19 166 
07.Shops location 18 49 67 47 13 7 67 
09.Sellers service 22 25 47 30 9 8 47 
08.Shops window exhibition 17 26 43 31 10 2 43 
11.Friends/Family advise 15 28 43 30 8 5 43 
10.Payement ease 18 21 39 26 9 4 39 
12.Social recognition 9 28 37 23 7 7 37 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 
From the following. What are the main factors that  SES groups  City  
you consider at the moment of buying a brand of      
personal care product? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
03.Product quality 232 277 50 559 263 91 157 48 559 
01.Brand 238 269 34 541 266 79 139 57 541 
05.Price 237 180 18 435 220 82 86 47 435 
06.Discounts 112 97 14 223 117 64 32 10 223 
02.Brand advertising 78 88 8 174 110 44 14 6 174 
04.Variety de los productos 96 64 6 166 79 47 36 4 166 
07.Shops location 30 31 6 67 37 20 9 1 67 
09.Sellers service 25 17 5 47 17 19 10 1 47 
08.Shops window exhibition 21 21 1 43 18 19 6 0 43 
11.Friends/Family advise 28 14 1 43 16 21 6 0 43 
10.Payement ease 22 14 3 39 11 18 9 1 39 
 
171 
 
 
 
 
12.Social recognition 16 19 2 37 8 18 9 2 37 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 
 
 
Table C9 
 
Purchase factors for home care 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  Gender Age-gr oups   
consider at the moment of buying a brand of home care 
product? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total 
03.Product quality 188 295 483 348 85 50 483 
01.Brand 164 285 449 337 81 31 449 
05.Price 160 256 416 305 77 34 416 
06.Discounts 81 141 222 163 38 21 222 
02.Brand Advertising 62 96 158 116 26 16 158 
04.Variety 48 94 142 109 19 14 142 
07.Shops location 22 39 61 46 10 5 61 
11.Friends/Family advise 11 36 47 33 11 3 47 
08.Shops window exhibition 14 22 36 26 9 1 36 
09.Sellers service 12 23 35 28 5 2 35 
10.Payement ease 15 19 34 25 5 4 34 
12.Social recognition 8 20 28 19 5 4 28 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 2 4 6 1 5 0 6 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  SES groups  City  
consider at the moment of buying a brand of home care 
product? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
03.Product quality 199 244 40 483 242 84 108 49 483 
01.Brand 197 229 23 449 227 73 95 54 449 
05.Price 213 178 25 416 218 83 70 45 416 
06.Discounts 120 93 9 222 123 69 24 6 222 
02.Brand Advertising 64 84 10 158 92 42 14 10 158 
04.Variety 69 68 5 142 82 37 18 5 142 
07.Shops location 31 24 6 61 37 18 5 1 61 
11.Friends/Family advise 27 17 3 47 20 16 11 0 47 
 
172 
 
 
 
 
08.Shops window exhibition 13 21 2 36 20 14 2 0 36 
09.Sellers service 13 17 5 35 13 17 5 0 35 
10.Payement ease 18 15 1 34 10 16 8 0 34 
12.Social recognition 11 16 1 28 8 9 10 1 28 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 1 5 0 6 3 3 0 0 6 
Table C10 
 
Purchase factors for perfumes 
 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you Gender Age-groups 
consider at the moment of buying a brand of perfumes? Pre- 
1.Male 2.Female Total Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total 
 03.Product quality 193 298   491 328  97  66 491 
 01.Brand 176 290   466 315  91  60 466 
 05.Price 149 240   389 265  75  49 389 
 06.Discounts 64 120   184 126  39  19 184 
 02.Brand Advertising 54 100   154 109  25  20 154 
 04.Variety 43 83   126 85  25  16 126 
 10.Payement ease 20 53   73 48  16  9 73 
 11.Friends/Family advise 19 24   43 32  8  3 43 
 09.Sellers service 14 24   38 30  5  3 38  07.Shops location 7 20 27 18 6 3 27 
     12.Social recognition 10 14   24 14  5   
5 24 
08.Shops window exhibition 11 11 22 18 4 0 22 
     13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 3 0   3 1  2  0 3  From the following. What are the main factors that you        
consider at the moment of buying a brand of perfumes? SES groups City 
  
 Low  Medium High  Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3. Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
03.Product quality  204 241  46 491 229  78 143 41 491 
01.Brand  187 245  34 466 207  75 131 53 466 
05.Price  213 162  14 389 199  67 86 37 389 
06.Discounts  104 74  6 184 100  51 25 8 184 
02.Brand Advertising  64 78  12 154 93  40 14 7 154 
04.Variety  60 58  8 126 64  35 21 6 126 
10.Payement ease  36 35  2 73 26  26 19 2 73 
 
 
173 
 
 
 
 
11.Friends/Family advise 24 15 4 43 12 22 8 1 43 
09.Sellers service 22 13 3 38 20 13 4 1 38 
07.Shops location 11 13 3 27 13 12 2 0 27 
12.Social recognition 9 13 2 24 11 5 7 1 24 
08.Shops window exhibition 10 11 1 22 12 7 2 1 22 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 2 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 3 
Table C11 
 
Purchase factors for electronics/computers 
 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you Gender Age-groups 
consider at the moment of buying a brand of 
 
electronics/computers? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total  
01.Brand 203 264 467 327 99 41 467 
03.Product quality 200 256 456 310 99 47 456 
05.Price 149 210 359 251 75 33 359 
02.Brand Advertising 55 101 156 112 25 19 156 
06.Discounts 59 94 153 103 33 17 153 
04.Variety 54 63 117 81 25 11 117 
11.Friends/Family advise 24 47 71 53 13 5 71 
10.Payement ease 35 33 68 52 10 6 68 
09.Sellers service 19 34 53 41 11 1 53 
12.Social recognition 16 30 46 34 8 4 46 
08.Shops window exhibition 19 13 32 18 11 3 32 
07.Shops location 13 17 30 24 4 2 30 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 2 2 4 4 0 0 4 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  SES groups  City  
consider at the moment of buying a brand of 
electronics/computers? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
01.Brand 202 235 30 467 224 71 122 50 467 
03.Product quality 174 240 42 456 214 71 127 44 456 
05.Price 195 146 18 359 180 70 66 43 359 
02.Brand Advertising 68 75 13 156 95 30 23 8 156 
06.Discounts 87 61 5 153 94 33 21 5 153 
04.Variety 55 57 5 117 66 26 22 3 117 
 
174 
 
 
 
 
11.Friends/Family advise 42 24 5 71 34 18 19 0 71 
10.Payement ease 30 37 1 68 33 19 16 0 68 
09.Sellers service 24 27 2 53 25 24 4 0 53 
12.Social recognition 26 18 2 46 15 9 22 0 46 
08.Shops window exhibition 10 18 4 32 21 10 1 0 32 
07.Shops location 13 14 3 30 15 10 4 1 30 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 2 2 0 4 2 0 2 0 4 
Table C12 
 
Purchase factors for furniture/appliances 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you consider  Gender Age-groups    
at the moment of buying a brand of furniture/appliances? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total 
01.Brand 155 221 376 307 58 11 376 
03.Product quality 147 229 376 311 56 9 376 
05.Price 113 164 277 234 37 6 277 
06.Discounts 46 74 120 101 19 0 120 
02.Brand Advertising 49 70 119 99 17 3 119 
04.Variety 37 64 101 87 11 3 101 
10.Payement ease 26 57 83 76 7 0 83 
09.Sellers service 13 21 34 32 2 0 34 
11.Friends/Family advise 12 22 34 31 3 0 34 
07.Shops location 9 24 33 27 6 0 33 
12.Social recognition 12 20 32 28 4 0 32 
08.Shops window exhibition 6 18 24 20 4 0 24 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 1 1 2 2 0 0 2 
From the following. What are the main factors that you consider  SES groups City   
at the moment of buying a brand of furniture/appliances? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín  4.Barranquilla Total 
01.Brand 149 194 33 376 172 61 95  48 376 
03.Product quality 143 192 41 376 187 57 97  35 376 
05.Price 135 120 22 277 139 51 50  37 277 
06.Discounts 50 63 7 120 75 25 15  5 120 
02.Brand Advertising 43 68 8 119 82 20 10  7 119 
04.Variety 43 52 6 101 54 20 23  4 101 
 
175 
 
 
 
 
10.Payement ease 51 27 5 83 20 26 36 1 83 
09.Sellers service 11 20 3 34 14 15 4 1 34 
11.Friends/Family advise 19 11 4 34 15 9 10 0 34 
07.Shops location 10 19 4 33 23 5 4 1 33 
12.Social recognition 16 15 1 32 11 9 12 0 32 
08.Shops window exhibition 5 17 2 24 13 9 1 1 24 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 
 
 
Table C13 
 
Purchase factors for clothes 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  Gender Age-g roups   
consider at the moment of buying a brand of clothes? 1.Male 2.Female Total Pre-Millennials Millennials Post-millennials Total 
03.Product quality 223 293 516 342 103 71 516 
01.Brand 208 286 494 329 95 70 494 
05.Price 146 219 365 241 69 55 365 
06.Discounts 73 109 182 122 37 23 182 
04.Variety 73 93 166 106 37 23 166 
02.Brand Advertising 53 82 135 87 26 22 135 
07.Shops location 36 39 75 57 16 2 75 
10.Payement ease 27 34 61 43 10 8 61 
08.Shops window exhibition 17 31 48 30 9 9 48 
09.Sellers service 18 28 46 36 7 3 46 
11.Friends/Family advise 12 22 34 23 8 3 34 
12.Social recognition 15 19 34 21 8 5 34 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 
From the following. What are the main factors that you  SES groups  City  
consider at the moment of buying a brand of clothes? Low Medium High Total 1.Bogotá 2.Cali 3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total 
03.Product quality 204 264 48 516 242 84 142 48 516 
01.Brand 198 265 31 494 246 67 126 55 494 
05.Price 186 160 19 365 180 74 72 39 365 
06.Discounts 92 84 6 182 94 54 28 6 182 
 
176 
 
 
 
 
04.Variety 71 84 11 166 80 40 39 7 166 
02.Brand Advertising 58 66 11 135 74 37 16 8 135 
07.Shops location 30 35 10 75 33 21 20 1 75 
10.Payement ease 25 28 8 61 20 27 13 1 61 
08.Shops window exhibition 16 30 2 48 30 10 8 0 48 
09.Sellers service 20 19 7 46 21 18 6 1 46 
11.Friends/Family advise 12 17 5 34 22 11 1 0 34 
12.Social recognition 17 15 2 34 11 9 12 2 34 
13.NONE (NOT READING) (97) 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 
 
 
Table C14 
 
Purchase factors for cars/motorcycles 
 
 
From the following. What are the main factors that you Gender Age-groups 
 consider at the moment of buying a brand of car/motorcycle? 1.Male  2.Female Total  Pre-Millennials Millennials Post-millennials  Total  
03.Product quality  43 41  84 77 7  0  84 
01.Brand  32 39  71 61 10  0  71 
05.Price  30 27  57 52 5  0  57 
02.Brand Advertising  14 11  25 22 3  0  25 
06.Discounts  10 4  14 13 1  0  14 
10.Payement ease  7 7  14 13 1  0  14 
04.Variety  6 6  12 12 0  0  12 
09.Sellers service  5 5  10 10 0  0  10 
11.Friends/Family advise  3 2  5 4 1  0  5 
07.Shops location  2 1  3 3 0  0  3 
08.Shops window exhibition  1 2  3 3 0  0  3 
12.Social recognition  0 3  3 3 0  0  3 
From the following. What are the main factors that you   SES groups     City    
consider at the moment of buying a brand of car/motorcycle? Low  Medium High  Total  1.Bogotá 2.Cali  3.Medellín 4.Barranquilla Total  
03.Product quality  10 57  17  84 49  11 14 10  84 
01.Brand  15 43  13  71 46  8 7 10  71 
 
177 
 
 
 
 
05.Price 8 37 12 57 35 9 5 8 57 
02.Brand Advertising 4 15 6 25 15 7 2 1 25 
06.Discounts 1 11 2 14 9 4 1 0 14 
10.Payement ease 1 12 1 14 6 4 4 0 14 
04.Variety 1 9 2 12 7 5 0 0 12 
09.Sellers service 2 8 0 10 5 3 1 1 10 
11.Friends/Family advise 1 3 1 5 4 1 0 0 5 
07.Shops location 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 
08.Shops window exhibition 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 
12.Social recognition 0 2 1 3 0 1 2 0 3 
178 
Table C15 
Frequency distribution for cities and SES 
SES_ groups 
Low Medium High Total 
Count Count Count  Count 
City 1.Bogotá 152 227 19 398 
2.Cali 49 43 9 101 
3.Medellín 93 86 24 203 
4.Barranquilla 44 44 11 99 
Total 338 400 63 801 
Table C16 
Frequency distribution for gender 
Total Gender 
Count % Share 
Gender 1.Male 343 42.8% 
2.Female 458 57.2% 
Total 801 100.0% 
Table C17 
Frequency distribution for age groups 
Age groups 
Total 
Count % Share 
Age groups 1.Pre-Millennials 528 65.9% 
2.Millennials 161 20.1% 
3. Post-millennials 112 14.0% 
Total 801 100.0% 
Table C18 
Frequency distribution for SES 
SES 
Total 
Count % Share 
What is the SES 1 22 2.7% 
socioeconomic SES 2 316 39.5% 
stratum that is SES 3 312 39.0% 
marked in your SES 4 88 11.0% 
public services SES 5 58 7.2% 
bills? SES 6 5 .6% 
Total 801 100.0% 
179 
Table C19 
Frequency distribution for main activities 
Occupation 
Total 
Count % Share 
1. Unemployed 117 14.6% 
2. Homemaker 106 13.2% 
3. Part-time employee 93 11.6% 
What is your 4. Full time employee 264 33.0% 
main activity? 5. Independent worker 159 19.9% 
6. No answer (No rating) 16 2.0% 
7. Student 46 5.7% 
Total 801 100.0% 
Table C20 
Frequency distribution for cities 
City 
Total 
Count % Share 
City 1.Bogotá 398 49.7% 
2.Cali 101 12.6% 
3.Medellín 203 25.3% 
4.Barranquilla 99 12.4% 
Total 801 100.0% 
Table C21 
Frequency distribution for educational achievement 
Education level 
Total 
Count % Share 
1. No formal schooling 1 0.1% 
2. Elementary school 44 5.5% 
3. High School Graduate 363 45.3% 
Highest 4.VoTech program 220 27.5% 
education 5.Bachelor degree
level 146 18.2% 
achieved 6. Master’s degree (1 year) 17 2.1% 
7.Master’s/Doctorate degree 3 0.4% 
8.No answer 7 0.9% 
Total 801 100.0%