Skincare industry booming Indonesia, reflecting importance lifestyle choices for customers. Skincare is not considered merely a beauty accessory, but a necessity for maintaining health, self-confidence, and appearance . Changes are evident in urban centers such as Surabaya, where modern lifestyles have created new consumption patterns and an emphasis on self-care. Traditionally, skincare was associated with female customers. However, in recent years, male customers have become an increasingly important market segment . Men now realize that skincare is not just about aesthetics, but also about hygiene and long-term health. Exposure to pollution and tropical climate has increased need for daily skincare routines among Indonesian men . As a result, men's self-care has become a promising sub-sector in broader beauty industry
Emergence Kahf in 2020 illustrates how local brands are adapting to this growing demand. Developed by PT Paragon Technology and Innovation, Kahf markets itself as a halal, nature-inspired brand designed specifically for men . Its positioning appeals to consumers who prioritize religious values, natural ingredients, and modern masculinity. In contrast, Garnier, a global brand under L’Oréal, has decades experience and enjoys strong recognition in Indonesia . Its reputation, affordability, and global image make it a key competitor to newer local players like Kahf.
Competitive landscape highlights three key element that influence customer purchase Interest: product quality, price, and brand image . High level good builds client trust and increases satisfaction, while price determines affordability and perceived value . Brand image, then, plays an important role in client perception, loyalty, and long-term choice. These three element interact to form basis client decision-making in skin care market .
Product quality refers to effectiveness, safety, and reliability a product . Skincare consumers are particularly sensitive to quality, as poor performance or adverse effects can have direct consequences on appearance and confidence . For this reason, Kahf emphasizes dermatologically tested formulas and natural ingredients, while Garnier leverages decades global research and product innovation. Both approaches aim to ensure consumer trust but appeal to slightly different market segments. Price is another decisive factor. In a diverse city such as Surabaya, consumers range from students with limited budgets to pressionals with higher purchasing power . Affordable pricing can make a brand accessible to a wider market, but premium positioning can create perceptions higher value. Garnier has historically benefited from economies scale, allowing it to maintain competitive prices, whereas Kahf ten positions itself slightly higher in certain categories, framing its products as premium yet accessible.
Brand reputation influences client loyalty through rational evaluation quality and price . Kahf builds its brand on halal authenticity, naturalness, and local identity, appealing more to Indonesian men . Garnier, other hand, supports its established global reputation, long-term credibility, and ongoing promotional campaigns to maintain client trust. Both approaches demonstrate cultural and psychological impact brand perception . Market data shows a shift in client preferences. Kahf has surpassed Garnier in certain product categories in e-commerce, mainly men's facial cleansers . This shows that buyers increasingly prefer domestic products that reflect their cultural and religious identities while still meeting their functional skin care needs. other hand, Garnier remains a strong competitor, maintaining wide distribution and affordability, allowing brand to retain a high market share.
Surabaya, Indonesia's second largest metropolitan city, provides a unique context for this study. city's population is diverse in terms age, income, and lifestyle, making it an ideal environment for analyzing purchasing decisions. Male clients in Surabaya represent both challenges and opportunities for men's skincare market, as they are exposed to demands modern lifestyles while also being influenced by cultural values. Given these dynamics, it is important to analyze relative impact product quality, price, and brand image purchasing decisions Kahf and Garnier clients in Surabaya. Understanding these element not only provides insight into client attitudes but also provides guidance for industry in formulating effective marketing strategies.
Thus, this study is useful in answering significant differences in product quality, price, and brand image between Kahf and Garnier, as well as element that influence client purchasing decisions. findings study expecte to contribe academic literature on client attitudes in emerging markets, while also providing practical recommendations for brand managers and marketers in competitive skin care industry.
This study use quantitative approach with survey method analyze relative impact product quality, price, and brand image purchase decision Kahf and Garnier skin care products in Surabaya. A quantitative design was chosen for its ability to test hypotheses statistically and provide objective insights into client choices.
The study population consisted male clients in Surabaya who had purchased and used Kahf and Garnier products. Since the total population size was unknown, Cochran's formula was used to determine the minimum sample size 97 persons. To strengthen reliability, 100 persons were surveyed through purposive sampling, with criteria including male clients aged 17–32 years, living in Surabaya, and having experience with both brands.
Data was collace through online questionnaires use five-point Likert scale. Independent variables were product quality, price, and brand image purchase decision was the dependent variable. Measurement indicators were adapted from previous research for validity.
Analysis was done using SPSS. Validity and reliability tests showed Cronbach’s Alpha above 0.60. Classical assumptions-normality, multicollinearity, and heteroscedasticity-were check. Multiple linear regression was applied, with F-tests assessing overall model significance and t-tests evaluating individual variables.
The characteristics the persons were obtained from a general description the study participants. Questionnaires were distributed to 100 persons in accordance with the predetermined criteria. The following description provides an overview the persons the data that were successfully collected.
| No | Gender | Frequenc y | Percentage |
| 1 | Male | 100 | 100% |
| Total | 100 | 100% | |
From table 1 above, it can be seen re are 100 male persons with a percentage 100%. This shows majority persons in this study are male.
| No. | Age | Frequency | Percentage |
| 1 | 17-20 | 21 | 21% |
| 2 | 21-24 | 32 | 32% |
| 3 | 25-28 | 19 | 19% |
| 4 | 29-32 | 28 | 28% |
| Total | 100 | 100% | |
Table 2 reveals 21–24 age group dominated the study, with 32 persons, equivalent to 32%. Next, there were 21 persons aged 17–20 years (21%), followed by 28 persons aged 29–32 years (28%). The lowest group was those aged 25–28 years, with 19 people, or 19%. Thus, it can be concluded majority persons were in the 21–24 age range.
| No. | Pression | Frequency | Percentage |
| 1 | Students | 49 | 49% |
| 2 | Private Employees | 22 | 22% |
| 3 | Entrepreneurs | 18 | 18% |
| 4 | Others | 11 | 11% |
| Total | 100 | 100% | |
Table 3 shows that out 100 person, 49 (49%) were students, 22 (22%) were private employees, 18 (18%) were entrepreneurs, and 11 (11%) worked in other fields. From these results, it can be conclude majority person study students.
| No. | Domicile | Frequency | Percentage |
| 1 | East Surabaya | 28 | 28% |
| 2 | West Surabaya | 31 | 31% |
| 3 | South Surabaya | 19 | 19% |
| 4 | North Surabaya | 22 | 22% |
| Total | 100 | 100% | |
Table 4 shows that out 100 persons, 22 people or 22% were from North Surabaya, 28 people or 28% were from East Surabaya, 31 people or 31% were from West Surabaya, and 19 people or 19% were from South Surabaya.
| No | Purchase | Frequency | Percentage |
| 1 | Previously used Garnier skincare products, now using Kahf. | 52 | 52% |
| 2 | Previously used Kahf skincare products now using Garnier | 48 | 48% |
| Total | 100 | 100% | |
Table 5 shows 100 person, 52 or 52% had used Garnier skin care products and now use Kahf, while 48 people or 48% had used Kahf skin care products and now use Garnier.
From the SPSS output results, all questionnaire items used by Kahf and Garnier meet validity criteria. R-count value for every piece show to be greater r-table value 0.196 significance level 0.05. All items < variables quality product (X1), price (X2), brand image (X3), and purchase decision (Y) for both brands are declared valid and suitable for use study instruments. A summary the validity test results is presented table.
Based on Figure 1, the validity test results for Kahf products show that all questionnaire items across the variables of Product Quality (X1), Price (X2), Brand Image (X3), and Purchase Decision (Y) have R-Count values greater than the R-Table value (0.196). This indicates that all items are valid and can be used as research instruments.
Based on Figure 2, the validity test results for Garnier products also demonstrate that every item for Product Quality (X1), Price (X2), Brand Image (X3), and Purchase Decision (Y) exceeds the R-Table value of 0.196. Thus, all items meet the validity criteria and are appropriate for use in the study.
Reliability test is use assess consistency persons' responses questionnaire. Test use Cronbach's Alpha method, whereby variable considered reliable Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is > 0.60.
| Kahf Products | |||
| Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha | Alpha | Remarks |
| Quality (X1) | 0,791 | 0,60 | Reliable |
| Price (X2) | 0,763 | 0,60 | Reliable |
| Brand Image (X3) | 0,770 | 0,60 | Reliable |
| Purchase decision (Y) | 0,745 | 0,60 | Reliable |
Based on Table 8, the reliability test for Kahf products shows that all variables Product Quality (X1), Price (X2), Brand Image (X3), and Purchase Decision (Y) have Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.60. This confirms that all variables meet the reliability standard and can be considered consistent for further analysis.
| Garnier Product | |||
| Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha | Alpha | Remarks |
| Quality (X1) | 0,649 | 0,60 | Reliable |
| Price (X2) | 0,675 | 0,60 | Reliable |
| Brand Image (X3) | 0,635 | 0,60 | Reliable |
| Purchase decision (Y) | 0,783 | 0,60 | Reliable |
Based on Table 9, the reliability test for Garnier products indicates that Product Quality (X1), Price (X2), Brand Image (X3), and Purchase Decision (Y) also achieve Cronbach’s Alpha values greater than 0.60. Therefore, all variables are categorized as reliable and suitable for use in this study.
A normality test was carried out to examine whether the dataset conformed to the assumption of normal distribution, which is one of the fundamental prerequisites in parametric statistical analysis. Confirming this assumption is crucial, as it underpins the reliability of regression models and ensures that hypothesis testing produces valid results. Without normally distributed data, the statistical inferences drawn could be biased or misleading. In this study, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov procedure was employed with a 5% significance level (α = 0.05). If the significance value exceeds 0.05, the data can be considered normally distributed; otherwise, it is deemed non-normal. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in the table below to provide a clearer understanding of the data distribution used in the research.
| One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (Kahf) | ||
| Unstandardized Residual | ||
| N | 100 | |
| Normal Parametersa,b | Mean | .0000000 |
| Std.Deviation | 1.92686598 | |
| Most Extreme Differences | Absolute | .083 |
| Positive | .051 | |
| Negative | -.083 | |
| Test Statistic | .083 | |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .086c | |
| a. Test distribution is Normal. | ||
| b. Calculated from data. | ||
| c. Lilliefors Significance Correction. | ||
Based on Table 10 Normality Test for Kahf The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test for Kahf products present a significance value of 0.086. Since this value is higher than the 0.05 significance threshold, it can be concluded that the residuals are normally distributed. This finding is important because the normal distribution of residuals indicates that the regression model for Kahf satisfies one of the essential classical assumptions. Meeting this assumption strengthens the reliability of the statistical analysis, ensuring that the subsequent interpretation of regression coefficients and hypothesis testing can be considered valid and unbiased.
| One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (Garnier) | ||
| Unstandardized Residual | ||
| N | 100 | |
| Normal Parametersa,b | Mean | .0000000 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.92931857 | |
| Most Extreme Differences | Absolute | .077 |
| Positive | .059 | |
| Negative | -.077 | |
| Test Statistic | .077 | |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .158c | |
| a. Test distribution is Normal. | ||
| b. Calculated from data. | ||
| c. Lilliefors Significance Correction. | ||
Based on Table 11 Normality Test for Garnier The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for Garnier products demonstrates a significance value of 0.158, which is also greater than 0.05. This result suggests that the residuals follow a normal distribution, confirming that the regression model for Garnier adheres to the assumption of normality. The presence of normally distributed residuals enhances the robustness of the model, allowing for more accurate parameter estimation and inference. Consequently, this outcome validates the suitability of the dataset for parametric statistical procedures, supporting the credibility of the research findings..
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | .451 | 1.736 | .260 | .796 | |
| Quality | .089 | .045 | .198 | 1.979 | .051 | |
| Price | -.004 | .048 | -.010 | -.087 | .931 | |
| Brand image | -.048 | .049 | -.112 | -.988 | .326 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | ||||||
Based on Table 12, Heteroscedasticity was tested using Glejser’s method, yielding significance values 0.051 product quality, 0.931 price, and 0.326 brand image. All these values are below threshold 0.05, indicating regression model free heteroscedasticity issues.
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 3.335 | 1.369 | 2.436 | .017 | |
| Quality | -.088 | .049 | -.222 | -1.789 | .077 | |
| Price | .024 | .049 | .057 | .490 | .625 | |
| Brand image | -.004 | .054 | -.009 | -.074 | .941 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | ||||||
Based on Table 13, The Glejser test for heteroscedasticity shows significance values 0.077 product quality, 0.625 price, and 0.941 brand image. All values above threshold 0.05, indicating regression model for Garnier does not show heteroscedasticity. Thus, regression models both brands satisfy assumption equal residual variance and suitable for further regression analysis and hypothesis testing.
| Coefficientsa | |||
| Model | Collinearity Statistics | ||
| Tolerance | VIF | ||
| 1 | Quality | .989 | 1.011 |
| Price | .782 | 1.279 | |
| Brand image | .775 | 1.291 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | |||
Based on Table 14 the tolerance values ranging from 0.775 to 0.999 and VIF values between 1.011 and 1.291. Since all tolerance values exceed 0.10 and all VIF values remain below 10, it can be concluded that no multicollinearity problem exists among the independent variables. This indicates that the predictors used in the model are not highly correlated with each other, ensuring the stability of the regression estimation.
| Coefficientsa | |||
| Model | Collinearity Statistics | ||
| Tolerance | VIF | ||
| 1 | Quality | .650 | 1.538 |
| Price | .732 | 1.366 | |
| Brand image | .634 | 1.576 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | |||
Based on Table 15, the tolerance values range from 0.634 to 0.732, while the VIF values lie between 1.366 and 1.576. These results also fall within the acceptable range, as tolerance values are above 0.10 and VIF values are below 10. Therefore, the analysis confirms that multicollinearity is not present in the regression model. This outcome demonstrates that the independent variables contribute unique information without excessive overlap, allowing for reliable interpretation of their effects on purchase decisions.
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 13.505 | 2.830 | 4.772 | .000 | |
| Quality | -.176 | .074 | -.179 | -2.387 | .019 | |
| Price | .104 | .078 | .112 | 1.326 | .188 | |
| Brand image | .576 | .079 | .615 | 7.251 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | ||||||
According to Table 16 The constant value 13.505 shows that if product quality, price, and brand image are absent, the purchase decision is 13.505.
A negative regression coefficient –0.176 product quality (X1) implies that higher quality scores are associated with 0.176 decrease in purchase decision, assuming influence price and brand reputation unchanged.
In contrast, price (X2) shows positive relationship, where one-unit increase contributes 0.104 buy choise.
The strongest effect comes brand image (X3), with positive coefficient 0.576, suggesting improvements brand perception are linked higher buy choise values, provided other element are held constant.
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 7.697 | 2.239 | 3.437 | .001 | |
| Quality | .188 | .081 | .216 | 2.332 | .022 | |
| Price | .061 | .081 | .065 | .748 | .456 | |
| Brand image | .467 | .088 | .500 | 5.320 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | ||||||
According to Table 17 Regression constant 7.697, meaning buy choise is equal to 7.697 when Product quality, Price, Brand Image are equal to zero.
Product Quality (X1) has a coefficient of 0.188, meaning each unit increase raises purchase choice by 0.188.
Price (X2) has a coefficient of 0.061, while
Brand (X3) shows the strongest effect with a coefficient of 0.467. These indicate that all three variables positively influence purchase decision, assuming other factors are constant.
| ANOVAa | ||||||
| Model | Sum Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 318.672 | 3 | 106.224 | 27.743 | .000b |
| Residual | 367.568 | 96 | 3.829 | |||
| Total | 686.240 | 99 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: totaly | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), totalx3, totalx1, totalx2 | ||||||
Based on Table 18 ANOVA shows F = 27.743 > Ftable = 2.70 (p < 0.05), so the null hypothesis is rejected. Variables X1, X2, and X3 significantly affect Y.
| ANOVAa | ||||||
| Model | Sum Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 317.735 | 3 | 105.912 | 7.591 | .000b |
| Residual | 368.505 | 96 | 3.839 | |||
| Total | 686.240 | 99 | ||||
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | ||||||
| b. Predictors: (Constant), Quality, Price, Brand reputation | ||||||
Based on Table 19 ANOVA, F value 7.591 with significance level 0.000. The critical F value obtained from degrees freedom, where df1 = k – 1 = 3 and df2 = n – k – 1 = 96. The significance level is 5%, and the Ftable value 2.70. Because calculated F value (7.591) greater the critical F value (2.70) and the significance With value under 0.05, H0 is rejected, meaning X1, X2, and X3 together significantly affect Y.
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 13.505 | 2.830 | 4.772 | .000 | |
| Quality | -.176 | .074 | -.179 | -2.387 | .019 | |
| Price | .104 | .078 | .112 | 1.326 | .188 | |
| Brand reputation | .576 | .079 | .615 | 7.251 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Purchase Decision | ||||||
Based on table 20
Product quality (X1) on purchase decision (Y)
Statistical test t-value –2.387 significance level 0.019. Because absolute t-value > critical threshold (2.387 > 1.985) and significance level < 0.05, product quality (X1) proven to significantly affect Purchase Decision (Y), despite negative correlation.
Price (X2) on purchase decision (Y)
Price variable, t-value analysis 1.326, significance level 0.188. Because value is not greater t-value t-table and significance level is above threshold 0.05, price (X2) has no significant impact Purchase Decision (Y).
Brand image (X3) on Purchase decision (Y)
With t = 7.251 and p = 0.000 (p < 0.05), brand image (X3) significantly and positively influences purchasing decisions (Y).
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 7.697 | 2.239 | 3.437 | .001 | |
| Quality | .188 | .081 | .216 | 2.332 | .022 | |
| Price | .061 | .081 | .065 | .748 | .456 | |
| Brand image | .467 | .088 | .500 | 5.320 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Buy choise | ||||||
Based on Table 21
Product Quality (X1) on purchase decision (Y)
T-test show t-value 2.332 with significance level 0.022. Since t-value greater than 1.985 and significance level less 0.05, it clear quality product (X1) plays significant role purchase decision (Y).
Price (X2) on purchase decision (Y)
Price variable, t-test 0.748, significance level 0.456. Because result is not greater t-table value and significance level above 0.05, price (X2) has no impact on purchase decision (Y).
Brand image (X3) on purchase decision (Y)
t-value analysis 5.320, significance level 0.000. Because this result greater t-table value and is below 0.05 threshold, brand image (X3) has positive and significant impact purchase decision (Y).
Simultaneous F test results show significance 0.000 (< 0.05), which confirms that product quality, price, and brand image together have high impact purchasing decisions Kahf and Garnier. This shows that clients not only consider product quality, but also price level in relation to value and strength brand image. Synergy these element increases likelihood purchase skin care products.
Kahf, t-test results (sig = 0.019) and negative regression coefficient show that although poduct quality has an impact, it is not main factor in client decisions; other element such as brand image or pricemay have greater impact. Conversely, Garnier's t-test results (sig = 0.022) show strong and positive correlation, meaning that clients' higher perceptions quality directly increase their purchase intent. These findings highlight difference in attitudes between Kahf and Garnier clients.
Results Kahf and Garnier's t-test show that price does not have significant impact purchase decision (sig > 0.05). This means that clients do not consider price to be a major factor when choosing between two brands, but rather emphasize element such as brand reputation and product performance.
According to Kahf, brand image positively and significantly affects purchasing decisions (sig = 0.000, t = 7.251). Its position as an Islamic, modern, and masculine lifestyle brand is very attractive to young clients. In case Garnier, brand reputation has a high positive impact (sig = 0.000, t = 5.320), reinforced by its global reputation for skin care. Client trust, continuous innovation, and consistent branding further strengthen purchasing decisions. Overall, brand reputation appears to have most critical impact on client choice between two brands.
Results study show that level good has high impact Kahf and Garnier's purchasing decisions, although direction impact different. For Kahf, impact negative, showing that poduct quality main factor affecting client decisions. Conversely, Garnier shows strong and positive correlation, making level good key element in shaping purchasing attitudes. Meanwhile, price does not play significant role purchase decisions both brands. Garnier's affordable prices tend to attract clients looking value for money, while Kahf emphasizes its premium positioning and strong brand identity. Among variables analyzed, brand image proved to be determining factor. Kahf successfully attracted young audience with Islamic and modern lifestyle branding, while Garnier maintains client loyalty through established global reputation. Overall, product quality, price, and brand image shape client purchasing decisions, although relative impact differs between two brands.