This paper uses the improved AHP comprehensive evaluation method to evaluate the purchase intention of Chinese retailer private brands. This method can reduce the subjectivity of the weight selection and improve the accuracy of weights. The paper also uses the degree of membership to grade the evaluation levels and conducts the backward evaluation to the different levels of indicators one by one, thus obtaining the relative development level of each indicator. The evaluation results show that consumers have higher acceptance of retailer private brands and they have strong purchase intentions.
BellizziJ.A., KrueckebergH.F., HamiltonJ.R. and MartinW.S., Consumer Perceptions of National, Private, and Generic Brands, Journal of Retailing57 (1981), 56–70.
2.
CunninghamI.C.M., HardyA.P. and ImperiaG., Generic Brands versus National Brands and Store Brands, Journal of Advertising Research22 (1982), 25–32.
3.
AakerD.A., ManagingD.A., Brand Equity: Capitalizing on theValue of a Brand Name, (1991), New York: Free Press.
4.
GronroosC., Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in service competition (1990) Lexington Books.
5.
HanL., MeiQ., LuY.M., et al., Analysis and Study on AHP-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation China, Safety Science Journal14 (2004), 86–89.
6.
HuangX.B., FanR.G., Theory and Method of Management Science (2006), Wuhan University Press.
7.
KarrayS. and Martín-HerránG., Investigating the Relationship Between Advertising and Pricing in a Channel with Private Label Offering: A Theoretic Model, Review of Marketing Science6 (2008), 1–37.
KellerK.L., Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research29 (2003), 595–600.
10.
KoskinenS., UK Private Label: European Brand Leader?European Retail Digest21 (1999), 5–8.
11.
LiF. and ChenD., A Summary of Research on Retailers’ Private Brand Theory in the West, Journal of Beijing Technology and Business University (Social Science), 21 (2006), 1–5.
12.
LiangZ., YangK., SunY., YuanJ., ZhangH. and ZhangZ., Decision support for choice optimal power generation projects: Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on the electricity market, Energy Policy34 (2006), 3359–3364.
13.
LuoZ.Q. and YangS.L., Comparative study on several scales in AHP, Systems Engineering Theory & Practice9 (2004), 51–60.
14.
NandanS. and DickinsonR., Private Brands, Journal of Consumer Marketing11 (1994), 18–28.
15.
OfluoğluP., ÖrkN., MutluM.M. and AtilganT., The Best Supplier Selection by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (Fce) Methods: An Example of a Turkish Leather Apparel Company, Journal of Textile & Apparel/Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon27 (2017), 326–333.
16.
OlsonJ.C., Jacoby, Influence of Technology on Perceived Quality, Advances in Consumer Research6 (1973), 171–173.
17.
RongM., Application of Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method in Marketing Risk Assessment, Statistics and Decision-making07 (2011), 169–170.
18.
RothM.S., The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of Global Brand Image Strategies, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR)32 (1995), 163–175.
19.
ShannonR. and MandhachitaraR., Private-label grocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: A cross-cultural study, Journal of Brand Management12 (2005), 461–474.
20.
SundelH.H., An Experimental Analysis of Consumer Attitude Towards Grocery Distributed Private Brands Saint Louis University Thesis, (1974).
21.
WenH.Y., Wul.F. and MeiJ.J., Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of Guangzhou-Foshan public transit satisfaction of inter-city based on improved AHP method, Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni57 (2018), 64–71.
22.
ZhaoW.Q., JiaH.M. and ZhouX., The Discussion of Variety Elements and, Mathematics in Practice and Theory Multi-layers fuzzy Evaluation Model, 7 (2008), 8–14.
