The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector

Yıl 2017, , 31 - 64, 29.12.2017

G. Banu Dayanç Kıyat

https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587

Öz

In today’s business world, the new information era reveals the importance of perceived reputation management for brands. No matter how high the quality of the product is, as long its perceived reputation is not good, it is worthless from an economic point of view. Although a plethora of research has been conducted on reputation quotient, no study on perceived quality has been conducted in Turkey’s mobile communication sector. In this study, the relationship between reputation quotient and perceived quality was investigated. The reputation quotient and perceived quality of four bestselling mobile phones in Turkey, namely, ‘LG, Samsung, iPhone and HTC’ were examined. Fombrun’s “Reputation Quotient” and Aaker’s “Perceived Quality” models were employed to measure variables in the research model. By means of the convenience sampling method, 434 participants completed the study’s instrument on a voluntary basis. Data were analysed with SPSS 21.0 and a proposed relationship was tested through regression analysis. The results showed that there is positive relationship between reputation quotient and perceived quality. Furthermore perceived high quality is a necessity for high perceived reputation, but it is not sufficient as shown in the example of HTC.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Reputation quotient, perceived quality, communication brands

Türki̇ye’de Mobi̇l İleti̇şi̇m Sektöründeki̇ Markaların İti̇bar Katsayısı ve Algılanan Kali̇te İli̇şkisi

Öz

Günümüz iş dünyasındaki yeni bilgi çağı, markalar için itibar algısı yönetiminin önemini göstermektedir. Nekadar kaliteli ürün üretirsek üretelim itibarlı olarak algılanmıyorsak ekonomik olarak değersizdir. Yazında, itibar katsayısı ile ilgili çalışmalar olmakla birlikte, Türkiye’de mobil iletişim sektöründe Algılanan Kalite ve İtibar Katsayısı ilişkisi ile ilgili herhangi bir araştırmaya rastlanılmamıştır. Bu çalışmada, itibar katsayısı ve algılanan kalite arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Türkiyede en iyi satış yapan dört mobil iletişim kurumunlarında: ‘LG, Samsung, iPhone ve HTC’nin itibar katsayısı ve algılanan kalite’ incelenmiştir. Fombrun’un “İtibar Katsayısı” ve Aaker’ın “Algılanan Kalite” modelleri kullanılarak anket oluşturulmuştur. Uluşabilirlik örneklemi yöntemi kullanılarak, gönüllü 434 kişiden veri toplanmıştır. Data SPSS 21.0 ile analiz edilmiş ve ortaya atılan ilişki regresyon analizi ile test edilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki itibar katsayısı ile algılanan kalite arasında pozitif yönlü anlamı bir ilişki olduğu görülmüş ve. yüksek kalite algısı yüksek itibar algısı için gerek şartken, HTC örneğinde görüldüğü gibi yüksek itibar algısı için yeterli değildir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İtibar katsayısı, algılanan kalite, iletişim markaları, iletişim markaları

Kaynakça

• Aaker, D. A. (2009). Marka değeri yönetimi [Management of brand value] (E. Orfanlı, Trans.) İstanbul: MediaCat Alessandri, S. W., Un Yang S., & Kinsey D. (2006). An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation.
• 9.International Public Relations Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 12-24). Miami, FL: Marcia Watson DiStaso University of Miami.
• Apple hesapları hack’lendi: On binlerce iPhone kullanıcısının bilgileri tehlikede. (2015, September 1). Retrieved from http://www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/apple-hesaplari-hacklendi-on-binlerce-iphone-kullanicisininbilgileri-tehlikede,-nxtdKHD0Ey7g2iYNWYBtA Bartikowski B., Walsh G. & Beatty S. E. (2011). Culture and age as moderators in the corporate reputation and loyalty relationship. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 966, 972.
• Cabral, L.M.B. (2000). Stretching firm and brand reputation. RAND Journal of Economic, 31(4), 658-673.
• Carmeli, A. & Tishler, A. (2004). The relationships between ıntangıble organızational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1257-1278.
• Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
• Caruana, A., & Ewing, T. M. (2010). How corporate reputation, quality and value influence online loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1103-1110. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.030 Chen, C.N. & Ting, S.C. (2002). A study using the grey system theory to evaluate the importance of various service quality factors, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(7), 838-861.
• Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
• Corkindale, D. & Belder M. (2009). Corporate brand reputation and the adoption of innovations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 242–250.
• Çevre Raporları. (2017. April 10) Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/tr/environment/reports/ Darsono, L. I. & Junaedi, C. M. (2006). An examination of perceived quality, satisfaction and loyalyt relationship. Gadjah Mada Internatioanal Journal of Business, 8(3), 323-342.
• Davis G. & Miles L. (1998). Reputation management: Theory versus practice. Corporate Reputation Review, 21, 16-27.
• Davis G., Chun R., Silva R. V. da & Roper S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitivesness. London: Routledge.
• Dayanç Kıyat, B. & Sütçü C. S. (2012). Research on the measuring the reputation perception of health sector on social media. Proceedings of the International Reputation Management Conference, Kadir Has University – Reputation Management Institutes 17-19 October. (pp.19-28). Ankara:Pozitif.
• Dayanç Kıyat, G.B. (2014). The key of reputation. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Dayanç Kıyat, G.B. & Çalışkan, S.C. (2012). How much cultural assumptions matter in “corporate reputation dimensions” of the firms: A study from Turkish telecommunication industry. Mediterrenean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(5), 75-89.
• Flatt, S. J. & Kowalczyk, S. J. (2008). Creating competitive advantage through intangible assets: The direct and indirect effects of corporate culture and reputation. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 16(1), 13-30.
• Fombrun, C. J. & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
• Fombrun, C. J & Van Riel C.B.M. (2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies reputations. New York: Financial Times. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Fombrun, C. J. Gardberg, N. A. & Sever, J.M. (2000). The reputation quotient: a multi – stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255.
• Gaines-Ross, L. (2008).Corporate reputation: 12 steps to safeguarding and recovering reputation. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
• Gatti, L. Caruana, A. & Snehota I. (2012). The role of corporate social responsibility, perceived quality and corporate reputation on purchase intention: Implications for brand management. Journal of Brand Management, 20(1), 65-76.
• Gotsi, M. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition, corporate communications. An International Journal, 6(1), 24-30.
• Green, P. S. (1996). Şirket ününü korumanın yolları, (Abdullah Ersoy Trans.). Istanbul: AD Yayıncılık.
• Güllülü, U. & Bilgili, B. (2011). Satış sonrası hizmetlerde kalite algısı ve müşteri memnuniyeti ilişkisi. Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırması Journal, 7, 23-41.
• Güney, S. (2009). Sosyal Psikoloji. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Publishing.
• Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 135-144.
• İşte Apple’ın kırmızısı I-phone’u. (2017, April 10) Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:13BcPiFpdfUJ:www.hurriyet.com.tr/iste-applein-kipkirmizi-iphoneu-40402680+&cd=3&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr Jurisic, B., & Azevedo A. (2011). Building customer – brand relationships in the mobile communications market: The role of brand tribalism and brand reputation. Brand Management, 18(4/5), 349–366.
• Kowalczyk, S. J., & Pawlish, M. J. (2002) Corporate branding through external perception of organizational culture. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 159-174.
• Lewellyn, P. G. (2002). Corporate reputation. Business Society, 41(4), 446-455.
• Markwick, N., & Fill, C. (1997). Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 396-409.
• Okay, A., & Okay, A. (2007). Halkla ilişkiler kavram stratejileri ve uygulamaları. (3.rd. ed,) İstanbul: Der Publishing. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quailty: Implications for further research. Joumal of Marketing, 58, 111-124.
• Ruyter, K. D., & Wetzels, M. (1998). Linking perceived service quality and services loyalty: A multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12), 1082-1106.
• Schnietz, K., & Epstein, M. (2005). Exploring the financial value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility during a crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 327-345.
• Sekaran, U. (1992). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. UK: JohnWilley and Sons. Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty.
• European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), 19-35.
• Topuz, Y. V., & Çambaşı, İ. (2014). Asgari ücretli tüketicilerin fiyat ve fiyat – kalite algısı: Cep telefonu ürünleri üzerine bir araştırma, Niğde Üniversitesi İBBF Journal, 7(1), 315-327.
• Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.