GLOBAL AND LOCAL BRANDS: DISTINGUISHING PERCEPTIONS FROM ORIGIN

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to (1) disentangle the relationship between brand origin (global vs. local) and brand perceptions (perceived brand globalness, PBG vs. local iconness, LI), and (2) investigate how consumer ethnocentrism moderates these model pathways. Design/methodology/approach: We utilize a multi-method approach in two complementary studies, a survey (N=253) and an experiment (N=148). Findings: We find that brand origin (global vs. local) and perceptions (PBG vs. LI) are distinct constructs that need to be accounted for separately in brand evaluation models. We show that the routes to purchase intentions (PIs) differ across global and local origin brands. PBG has a positive relationship with perceived brand quality and prestige but only for global origin brands. In contrast, for local origin brands, LI plays a crucial role via positive relationships to perceived brand quality and prestige. Consumers prefer brands to stay true to their brand origin. Ethnocentrism dampens both the PBG-PI and LI-PI relations only for global origin brands. Neither PBG nor LI seems to trigger PIs for ethnocentric consumers for global origin brands. Originality/value: We show that the routes to PIs differ across global and local origin brands. Brand managers should stay true to the origins of their brands (global/local) in building their brands’ globalness/localness perceptions since consumers prefer a fit between origin and perceptions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Brand origin
• perceived brand globalness
• local iconness
• ethnocentrism

KÜRESEL VE YEREL MARKALAR: KÖKEN VE ALGI AYRIMI

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, (1) marka kökeni (küresel ve yerel) ile marka algıları (marka küreselliği, MK ve yerel ikonluk, Yİ) arasındaki ilişkileri ve (2) bu yapısal ilişkiler üzerinde tüketici etnosentrizminin rolünü araştırmaktadır. Metodoloji: Ampirik olarak birbirini tamamlayıcı iki metot, bir anket (N=253) ve bir deney (N=148) kullanılmaktadır. Bulgular: Marka değerlendirme modellerinde marka kökeni (küresel ve yerel) ile marka algıları (MK ve Yİ) ayrı ayrı hesaba alınması gereken farklı kavramlardır. Tüketicilerin satın alma niyetlerini (SAN) artırmada küresel ve yerel kökenli markalar arasında farklılıklar bulunmaktadır. MK'nin marka kalitesi ve prestiji ile pozitif bir ilişkisi vardır, ancak bu sadece küresel kökenli markalar için geçerlidir. Buna karşılık, yerel kökenli markalar için Yİ, marka kalitesi ve prestiji ile pozitif ilişkisi sebebiyle önemli bir rol oynar. Tüketiciler, marka kökenlerine sadık kalan markaları tercih etmektedir. Ayrıca, etnosentrizm, hem MK-SAN hem de Yİ-SAN ilişkilerini yalnızca küresel kökenli markalar açısından zayıflatıcı etkiye sahiptir. Etnosentrik tüketicilerin küresel kökenli markalar açısından SAN'larını tetiklemekte ne MK, ne de Yİ etkin bir rol oynar. Özgünlük/değer: Çalışmamız SAN'a giden yolların küresel ve yerel kökenli markalar arasında farklılık gösterdiğine işaret ediyor. Tüketicilerin köken ile algılar arasında uyumu tercih etmesi nedeniyle, yöneticilere markalarının küresellik/yerellik algılarını oluştururken marka kökenine (küresel/yerel) sadık kalmalarını öneriyoruz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Marka kökeni
• algılanan marka küreselliği
• yerel ikonluk
• etnosentrizm

Kaynakça

1. Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., and Batra, R. (1999), “Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
2. Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., and Batra, R. (2006), “Consumer attitudes toward marketplace globalization: Structure, antecedents and consequences”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 227-239.
3. Arnould, E. J., and Thompson, C. J. (2005), “Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty years of research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 868-882.
4. Balabanis, G., and Diamantopoulos, A. (2004), “Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: a multidimensional unfolding approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 80-95.
5. Balabanis, G., and Diamantopoulos, A. (2011), “Gains and losses from the misperception of brand origin: The role of brand strength and country-of-origin image”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 95-116.
6. Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and Ramachander, S. (2000), “Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-95.
7. Bilgin, Z. F., and Wührer, G. A. (2014), The Marketing Compact, Linde International, Vienna, Austria.
8. Britt, B. (2003), “Chevy Chase does Turkish cola ads aimed at Coke and Pepsi”, AdAge.com, available at: http://adage.com/article/news/chevy-chase-turkish-cola-ads-aimed-coke-pepsi/38049/ (accessed 2 August 2018).

9. Burgess, S.M., and Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M. (2006), “Marketing renaissance: How research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 337-356.
10. Chattopadhyay, A., Batra, R., and Özsomer, A. (2012), The New Emerging Market Multinationals: Four Strategies for Disrupting Markets and Building Brands, McGraw-Hill, USA.
11. Chu, S., and Keh, H. T. (2006), “Brand value creation: Analysis of the Interbrand-Business Week brand value rankings”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 323-331. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., and West, S. G. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (6th Ed.), L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
12. Davvetas, V., Sichtmann, C., and Diamantopoulos, A. (2015), “The impact of perceived brand globalness on consumers’ willingness to pay”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 32 No.4, pp. 431- 434.
13. Diamantopoulos, A., Herz, M., and Koschate-Fischer, N. (2017), “The EU as superordinate brand origin: An entitativity perspective”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 183-205.
14. Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., and Ronkainen, I. A. (2008), “Cognitive and affective reactions of US consumers to global brands”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 113-135.
15. Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319.
16. Eng, T.-Y., Ozdemir, S., and Michelson, G. (2016), “Brand origin and country of production congruity: Evidence from the UK and China”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, pp. 5703-5711.
17. Erdem, T., and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-157.
18. Erdem, T., and Swait, J. (2004), “Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 191-198.
19. Erdem, T., Swait, J., and Louviere, J. (2002), “The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
20. Gardels, N. (2008), “Post-globalization”, New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 2-5.
21. Ghemawat, P. (2017), “Globalization in the age of Trump”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 112-123.
22. Gurhan-Canli, Z., Sarıal-Abi, G., and Hayran, C. (2018), “Consumers and brands across the globe: Research synthesis and new directions”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 96-117.
23. Han, C. M., and Terpstra, V. (1988), “Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 235-255.
24. Harmeling, C.M., Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B., Arnold, M.J., and Samaha, S.A. (2015), “Transformational relationship events”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 39-62.
25. Herz, M. F., and Diamantopoulos, A. (2013), “Activation of country stereotypes: Automaticity, consonance, and impact”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 400-417.
26. Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., and Taylor, E. L. (2004), “How global brands compete”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. September, pp. 1-8. Jaffe, E. D., and Nebenzahl, I. D. (1984), “Alternative questionnaire formats for country image studies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 463-471.
27. Kapferer, J.-N. (2005), “The Post-global brand”, Journal of Brand Management (London), Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 319-324.
28. Keller, K.L., and Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
29. Klein, A., and Moosbrugger, H. (2000), “Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method”, Psychometrika, Vol. 65, pp. 457-474.
30. Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S. A., and Zdravkovic, S. (2011), “What? I thought Samsung was Japanese”: accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 454-472.
31. Mandler, T., Won, S., and Kim, K. (2017), “Consumers’ cognitive and affective responses to brand origin misclassifications: Does confidence in brand origin identification matter?” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 80, pp. 197-209.
32. Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2012), MPlus User’s Guide (7th Ed.), Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
33. Nijssen, E. J., and Douglas, S. P. (2004), “Examining the animosity model in a country with a high level of foreign trade”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, pp. 23-38.
34. Özsomer, A. (2012), “The Interplay between global and local brands: A closer look at perceived brand globalness and local iconness”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 72-95.
35. Özsomer, A., and Altaras, S. (2008), “Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 1-28.
36. Riefler, P. (2012), “Why consumers do (not) like global brands: The role of globalization attitude, GCO and global brand origin”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29, pp. 25-34.
37. Samiee, S. (2011), “Resolving the impasse regarding research on the origins of products and brands”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 473-485.
38. Samiee, S., Shimp, T. A., and Sharma, S. (2005), “Brand origin recognition accuracy: its antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations”, Journal of international Business studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 379-397.
39. Schrift, R. M., and Amar, M (2015), “Pain and preferences: Observed decisional conflict and the convergence of preferences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 42, pp. 515-534.
40. Sharp, B. (2010), How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don't Know. Oxford University Press.
41. Shimp, T. A., and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No.3, pp. 280-289.
42. Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., Batra, R., and Alden, D. L. (2003), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand value”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
43. Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., and de Jong, M.G. (2010), “A global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp.18-40.
44. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., and Price, L. L. (2008), “Branded products as a passport to global citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 57-85.
45. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., and Price, L. L. (2012), “The young adult cohort in emerging markets: Assessing their glocal cultural identity in a global marketplace”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 43-54.
46. Torelli, C.J, Özsomer, A., Carvalho, S.W., Tat K. H., and Maehle, N. (2012), “Brand concepts as representations of human values: Do cultural congruity and compatibility between values matter? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 July, pp. 92-108.
47. Usunier, J.-C. (2011), “The shift from manufacturing to brand origin: Suggestions for improving COO relevance”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 486-496.
48. van Ittersum, K., and Wong, N. (2010), “The Lexus or the olive tree? Trading off between global convergence and local divergence”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 107-118.
49. Verlegh, P.W.J. (2007), “Home country bias in product evaluation: the complementary roles of economic and socio-psychological motives”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 361-373.
50. Verlegh, P.W.J., and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1999), “A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-546.
51. Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., and Verlegh, P.W.J. (2014), “Global vs. local brands: How home country bias and price differences impact brand evaluations”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 102-128.
52. Zarantonello, L., Jedidi, K., and Schmitt, B. H. (2013), “Functional and experiential routes to persuasion: An analysis of advertising in emerging versus developed markets”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 30, pp. 46-56.
53. Zhang, Y., and Khare, A. (2009), “The impact of accessible identities on the evaluation of global versus local products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 524-537.