«of the AM’s Brand, Corporate Identity and Reputation SIG INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SESSIONS Sessions chairs The main function of a session chair is to ...»
In case of a high fit respondents’ product attitudes were not significantly more favourable in the assertive than in the offensive SPS (F1.58=0.790, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.262), having to reject hypotheses 2a. In case of a low fit product attitudes in the offensive SPS were significant more favourable than in the assertive SPS (F1.59=5.062, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.115), confirming hypotheses 2b.
In regards to purchase intentions, there is no interaction effect between independent variables (F1.118=0.217, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.032). In case of a high fit purchase intentions in the assertive SPS-group are not significantly different from those in the offensive SPSgroup (F1.58=0.401, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.033). Similarly, there are no significant differences between assertive and OSPS in the low fit condition (F1.59=1.075, p0.05;
adjusted R2=0.020). Therefore, hypothesis H3a and H3b are rejected.
Finally, our findings regarding the willingness to pay show that no independent variable did influence the dependent variable significantly (fit: F1.118=0.840, p0.05; SPS: F1.118=0.010, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.096). Consumers in the high fit condition were not willing to pay more in the aSPS than in the oSPS (F1.58=0.401, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.098). Similar effects occurred in the low fit condition (F1.59=0.676, p0.05; adjusted R2=0.052). Consequently, we reject H4a and H4b.
Theoretical implications This paper contributes to the controversial discussion on COO by considering different SPS.
Even though we cannot support all assumptions considering different SPS and the fit, this is a first attempt to emphasize on the importance of communication styles as moderator. Further, we show that COO might affect consumers’ perceptions of brand image and the value of a product differently.
Practical implications In this study we can confirm previous studies (e.g. Usunier, 2006) pointing out the insignificance of the COO cue in the consumer decision process. Our findings indicate that managers should carefully consider the key benefits of COO in advertising when aiming to increase brand reputation, because COO might not lead consumers to buy or consume more.
However, consumers were willingness to pay significantly more.
Limitations and future research This study focussed on one external cue: COO. Future research should examine the impact of several external cues in advertising and compare them. In addition, this experimental study should be replicated in other product categories and to a broader population from different countries.
Originality and value of the study Even though research on COO is huge, there are controversial findings and knowledge on how to communicate COO appropriately is limited. This study is a first step to examine different consumer responses in regards to SPS, considering the key role of fit between product and COO.
Keywords Impression Management, Self-presentation Styles, Country of Origin, Comparative Advertising, Food Marketing References Aaker, D.A. & Keller, K.L. 1990. Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 27–41 Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211.
Al‐Sulaiti, K.I. & Baker, M.J. 1998. Country of origin effects: a literature review. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 16 (3), 150–199.
Baumeister, R.F. 1982. A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91 (1), 3–36.
Bilkey. W.J. & Nes, E. 1982. Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies 13 (1), 89–99.
Bloemer, J., Brijs, K. & Kasper, H. 2009. The CoO-ELM model: a theoretical framework for the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects. European Journal of Marketing 43 (1/2), 62–89.
Buss, D.M. & Dedden, L.A. 1990. Derogation of Competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 7 (3), 395–422.
Cialdini, R.B. & Richardson, K.D. 1980. Two Indirect Tactics of Image Management:
Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (3), 406-415.
Eagly, A. H.; Wood, W.; Chaiken, S. 1978. Causal Inferences About Communicators and Their Effect on Opinion Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (4), 424Etgar, M.; Goodwin, S.A. 1982. One-Sided versus Two-Sided Comparative Message Appeals for New Brand Introductions. Journal of Consumer Research 8 (4), 460-465.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E.F., Costley, C. & Barnes, J. 1997. Comparative Versus Noncomparative Advertising: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing 61 (4), 1-15.
Jones, E.E. & Pittman, T.S. 1982. Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation.
In: J. Suls (ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self. Vol 1, p. 231-262, Hillsdale, NY:
Leary, M.R. & Kowalski, R.M. 1990. Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin 107 (1), 34-47.
Levine, P. 1976. Commercials That Name Competing Brands. Journal of Advertising Research 16 (6), 7-14.
Liu, S.S. & Johnson, K.F. 2005. The automatic country-of-origin effects on brand judgement.
Journal of Advertising 34 (1), 87-97.
Loken, B. & Ward, J. 1990. Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (2), 111-126.
MacKenzie, S.B. & Lutz, R.J. 1989. An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context. Journal of Marketing 53 (2), 48–65.
Miniard, P. W.; Barone, M. J.; Rose, R. L.; Manning, K. C. 2006. A Further Assessment of Indirect Comparative Advertising Claims of Superiority Over All Competitors. Journal of Advertising, 35 (4), 53-64.
Mitchell, A.A. & Olson, J.C. 1981. Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude? Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3), 318–332.
Mitchell R.C. & Carson R.T. 1981. An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Draft Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA.
Muehling, D.D., Stoltman, J.J. & Grossbart, S. 1990. The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Levels of Message Involvement. Journal of Advertising 19 (4), 41–50.
Nan, X. & Heo, K. 2007. Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives: Examining the Role of Brand-Cause Fit in Cause-Related Marketing. Journal of Advertising 36 (2): 63–74.
Pechmann, C. 1992. Predicting When Two-Sided Ads Will Be More Effective Than OneSided Ads: The Role of Correlational and Correspondent Inferences. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (4), 441-453.
Ryan, M., Scott, D.A. & Donaldson, C. 2004. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2), 237–58.
Samiee, S. 2010. Advancing the country image construct – a commentary essay. Journal of Business Research 63 (4), 442-445.
Samiee, S. 2011. Resolving the impasse regarding research on the origins of products and brands. International Marketing Review 28 (5), 473-485.
Schlenker, B.R. & Weigold, M.F. 1992. Interpersonal process involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 133-168.
Schlosser, A.E., White, T.B. & Lloyd S.M. 2006. Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers:
How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions. Journal of Marketing 70 (2), 133–148.
Schniederjans, D., Cao, E.S. & Schniederjans, M. 2013. Enhancing financial performance with social media: An impression management perspective. Decision Support Systems 55 (4) 911–918.
Schuetz, A. 1998. Assertive, Offensive, Protective, and Defensive Styles of Self-Presentation:
A Taxonomy. Journal of Psychology 132 (6), 611-628.
Swinyard, W. R. 1981. The Interaction Between Comparative Advertising and Copy Claim Variation. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (2), 175-186.
Tangari, A.H. & Smith, R.J. 2012. How the Temporal Framing of Energy Savings Influences Consumer Product Evaluations and Choice. Psychology & Marketing 29 (4), 198–208.
Usunier, J.-C. & Cestre, G. 2007. Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match between Products and Countries. Journal of International Marketing 15 (3) 32–72.
Völckner, F., Sattler, H. 2006. Drivers of Brand Extension Success. Journal of Marketing 70 (2), 18-34.
Wyckham, R.G. 1987. Implied Superiority Claims. Journal of Advertising Research 27 (1), 54-63.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (3), 341-352.
Appendices Table 1. Descriptives of the dependent variables by treatment.
Brand SPS: Brand Self-presentation Style Before the survey, the questionnaire as well as the different headlines were translated from English into Spanish and then back into English.
Appendix 2. Headlines of the different groups.
1) Riedenburger, deserves to be called beer. Made in Germany.
(high fit between product and COO; assertive brand self-presentation style)
2) Riedenburger, the rest do not deserve to be called beer. Made in Germany.
(high fit between product and COO; offensive brand self-presentation style)
3) Piraiky, deserves to be called beer. Made in Greece.
(low fit between product and COO; assertive brand self-presentation style)
4) Piraiky, the rest do not deserve to be called beer. Made in Greece.
(low fit between product and COO; offensive brand self-presentation style)
5) Deserves to be called beer.
(Control Group I; assertive brand self-presentation style)
6) The rest do not deserve to be called beer.
(Control Group II; offensive brand self-presentation style) Note: As an direct comparison to other countries (which might have a higher fit of COO and product in case of a low fit condition) does not seem appropriate and useful, we do consider rather an indirect comparison to other countries in general with a superiority claim (Wyckham, 1987, Miniard et al., 2006).
Appendix 3. Measures.
Branding from emerging countries to the world: A conceptual framework Chailan, Claude Purpose The purpose of this communication is to investigate the brand policy options offered to emerging countries’ companies (ECCs) and contribute to the understanding of this new endorsement phenomenon. Our objective is to explore the nature of emerging countries’ companies branding approaches and identify factors associated with the successful transfer of information from these brands to the product and to the consumer.
In the academic field an important body of research already exists on international branding policies in and from developed countries’ companies (Urde, 1999; Kapferer, 2000;
Strebinger, 2004; Wong and Merrilees, 2007; Yi-Min, 2010). Nevertheless, the specific options offered to emerging countries’ companies have not been widely studied in academic research yet and although emerging countries’ companies are structuring an increase in power of their brands, studies that combine research on brand strategies with research on emerging countries’ companies are still in their infancy. ECCs have been considered as typically technological laggards with strong brands at home (Ramamurti, 2012) although a historical perspective suggests that we may be witnessing the fourth wave of multinationals to appear on the global stage after before World War I, US post WWII expansion, and multinational companies coming out of Japan in the 80s and 90s.
A key challenge facing emerging countries’ companies is to manage brands as effectively as their competitors. This is particularly true at a time when the rise of emerging country multinational companies is like a replay of the 1960s and 1970s Ramamurti (2012) when new global players appeared out of Japan, Taiwan and Korea and when through globalization “products and brands [became] free to travel the world in search of new markets and new consumers” (Rosenbloom and Haefner, 2009).
Furthermore, most of the theories on branding strategies are Western-based, which may or may not be applicable to other contexts and a view from emerging countries may provide relevant new insights from brand management. Therefore, a need for brand is now appearing in emerging countries in order to compete with Western companies. Emerging countries’ companies have to focus on defining the most adequate policy to reach their goals and a major challenge facing emerging countries’ companies is to manage brands more effectively than their competitors (Sharma, 1999; Slater and Olson, 2001; Whitelock and Fastoso, 2007;
Schultz, 2008; Hult, 2012). Emphasizing - or not - the brand of origin is an important decision to be made when branding product (Usunier, 2011; Shet, 2011; Winit, 2014). It is a long-term decision which engages the brand with a unique patrimony and a strong commitment to consistency with other elements communicated.
Approach Western consumers often associate their products with poor quality or disappointing products, or ones that don’t comply with international safety standards. These negative associations (Aaker, 1992; Keller, 1993, 2012) toward emerging countries’ brands create lower expectations of quality, an absence of trust and/or low loyalty levels. Therefore most consumers are not willing to pay as much for products from emerging markets (Magnusson et al., 2008). Emerging countries’ companies must thus face and respond to two brand equity issues regarding the trust and safety offered to the customer and, next, in regards to the global vs. local dimension and positioning choice. In order to clarify the options offered to emerging countries’ companies we have formulated a theoretical construct that provides a representation for the possible brand strategy choices, defined by way of the emerging country company’s position vis-à-vis each of the two brand equity issues it has to face.