banik-country of origin, brand image perception and brand image structure-eng (17 pages)_442242

8/13/2019 BANik-Country of Origin, Brand Image Perception and Brand Image Structure-Eng (17 Pages)_442242

1/17

COO and branimag

13

Asia Pacific Journal of Marke

and Logis

Vol. 20 No. 2, 2

pp. 139

# Emerald Group Publishing Lim

1355-5

DOI 10.1108/13555850810864

Received May 20Revised September 20

Accepted September 20

Country of origin, brand imageperception, and brand image

structureYamen Koubaa

University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences, Kobe, Japan

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of country of origin (COO) informationon brand perception and brand image structure.Design/methodology/approach Through an analytical review, research hypotheses were built.An empirical investigation was carried out among Japanese consumers. Two brands of electronicswith different levels of reputation were investigated.Findings Results showed that COO had an effect on brand perception. This effect differs acrossbrands and across countries of production. Brand-origin appears to be of significant impact onconsumer perception. Brand images are found to be multidimensional. Their structures differ acrossbrands and across COO.Research limitations/implications COO has multiple effects on brand image perception. Brandimage is multidimensional. This research dealt with one type of product among culturally similarrespondents which may limit the finding.Practical implications Marketing actions should be customized across brands with differentlevels of reputation. Brand image should be assessed as a multidimensional concept incorporatingmultiple facets. Consumers are influenced by the brand-origin. Marketers should be aware of thisassociation.Originality/value This research tests the multidimensional aspect of brand image structure andeffect of COO information on brand image structure. Results show that COO information affects boththe degree of fragmentation of brand image as well as its composition.

Keywords Brand awareness, Brand image, Brand management, Country of origin, Japan

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionBrand image research has long been recognized as one of the central area of themarketing research field not only because it serves as a foundation for tacticalmarketing-mix issues but also because it plays an integral role in building long-termbrand equity (Keller, 1993). Alternately, the globalization has resulted in theproliferation of hybrid products (Czepiec and Cosmos, 1983; Johanson and Nebenzahl,1986). Hybrid products are products that involve a local manufacturer but carry aforeign brand or locally branded but made in a foreign country (Czepiec and Cosmos,1983). Hence, many products are experiencing a lack of congruency between the brand-

origin (country where the brand is perceived to belong by its target consumers) and thecountry of origin (COO) labeled on the product. This research studies the effect ofdifferent COO labels on brand image perception and brand image structure of twobrands with different level of reputation among Japanese consumers.

BackgroundDecision making is painful (Pfister, 2003). It requires effortful processing of availableinformation to reach a suitable judgment. Thus, consumers may rely on inferences tomake a choice. Huber and McCann (1982) have shown that inferences can affect how

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm


2/17

APJML20,2

140

people evaluate products. Inferences come from previous experiences and storedinformation about the products cues like brand and COO. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)described three kinds of human beliefs: descriptive, informational, and inferential.Descriptive beliefs derive from direct experience with the product. Informational

beliefs are those influenced by outside sources of information such as ads, friends, andso on. Inferential beliefs are those formed by making inferences (correctly orincorrectly) based on past experience as this experience relates to the current stimuli.Images held in consumer mind are one manifestation of these beliefs. Under effect ofcommunication and previous use, consumers form images about products cues thatwill serves as basis for judgment in future evaluations. Erikson et al.(1984) found thatimages variables influence consumers multi-attribute evaluation. Images variables aresome aspects of the product that is distinct from its physical characteristics but that isnevertheless identified with the product (Erikson et al., 1984).

Frequency information (repetitive occurrence of information) affects familiarity(Alba and Marmorstein, 1987) and then affects reputation which in turn, affects imagesin consumer mind (Holbrook, 1978; Eriksonet al., 1984; Alba and Marmorstein, 1987).

In line with Thorndikes (1920) conclusion that beliefs recorded on some attributes tendto be caused by a belief recorded on some other attribute, previous researches haverevealed significant effect of COO information on brand image (Ahmed and Dastous,1996; Al-sulaiti and Baker, 1998; Anderson and Chao, 2003; Cervino et al., 2005), and asignificant effect of brand reputation on country image (Hui and Zhou, 2003). In 1998,Schlomo and Jaffe proved that there are brand and country images over and above theperceived attributes of products associated with a country or being sold under aspecific brand name and that there are two ways interactions among these constructsthat change over time. Brand image is defined as a set of perceptions about a brand asreflected by the brand associations held in consumers memory (Hsieh and Lindridge,2005). Country image is the overall perception consumers form of products from aparticular country, based on their prior perceptions of the countrys production andmarketing strengths and weaknesses (Roth and Romeo, 1992). Brands as well ascountries have different images. With the accelerated movement of globalization (e.g.Levitt, 1983), the emergence of brands across nations revitalizes the age-old issue ofwhich brand strategies, standardization vs customization, should be used in whichmarket. The emergence of global brands gives rise to the issue of whether brand-imageappeals affect consumer responses differently in different countries (Hsieh et al., 2004).A firm involved in multiple markets should identify the national characteristics thatcould affect the success of its brand-image strategies. As one brand may be produced indifferent countries earning different characteristics, brand images held in consumermind are likely to be affected differently across countries of production.

Ultimately, the power of a brand lies in the minds of consumers or customers

(Keller, 2000, p. 157) and that the meaning that customers attached to a brand may bedifferent from that which the firm intends. As image is the fruit of mental configurationand analytical processing, image formation is subject to influence of internal andexternal factors. Internal factors are the set of consumers personal characteristics(Koubaa, 2006). External factors are the set of product features and country imageperceptions (Umbrella brand-image) (Meenghan, 1995). Umbrella brand-image refers tothe fact that the brand image perception is under influence of country imageperceptions. Country image (from where the brand originate or is manufactured)perceptions is premature to the brand image perception in consumer mind. They comeas an umbrella that covers the brand image perception. To some extent, umbrella


3/17

COO and branimag

14

brand-image has been described as part of branding strategy at the country level(Meenaghan, 1995). Consumers tend to recall the stored information about the brandand the country in question and then they relate the brand name with the COO to forma brand image and infer the product evaluation (Scott and Keith, 2005). The effect of

country image on brand image is moderated by both brand and country reputation(Hui and Zhou, 2003). That is to say the brand image of a well-known brand of a givenproduct produced in a famous country for that product is likely to be affecteddifferently from the brand image of a well-known brand produced in an unknowncountry and vice-versa. Here another issue is to be considered that of brand-origin.Brand-origin is defined by Takhor and Kohli (1996) as the place, region, or countrywhere brand is perceived to belong by its target consumers. Previous researchesrevealed strong associations between the brand and the brand-origin (OShaughnessyand OShaughnessy, 2000; Rattif, 1987; Takhor and Kohli, 1996). OShaughnessy andOShaughnessy (2000) affirmed that is important that research shed light onunderstanding the relative influence of brand-origin associations compared to COO astraditionally manipulated by the Made in cue. When brands come to life, they come in

association with their brand-origin. Consumers learn that the brand is born in thatcountry and they may refer to that country in the evaluation of this brand whenproduced in another country than the brand-origin.

Brand image is the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to a specificbrand. It consists of functional and symbolic brand beliefs (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990).Brand image is made up of brand associations. Brand associations are the category ofbrands assets and liabilities that include anything linked in memory to a brand(Aaker, 1991). Associations are informational nodes linked to the brand node inmemory that contains the meaning of the brand for consumers (Keller et al., 1998).According to the associative network model (Farquhar and Herr, 1993), a personsmemory is made up of links and nodes: links represent relationships (positive ornegative, weaker or strong), and nodes represent concepts (e.g. brand associations) andobjects (e.g. brands). Beliefs have two structural properties, namely, abstraction andcomplexity. Its must be taken into account in assessment of the structure of brandassociations. The role of abstraction in classifying associations finds its evidence in themeans-end chain theory, which reflects the memory linkages among attributes (i.e.means), consequences, and attitude (i.e. end) (Gutman, 1982) on the basis of the notionthat the product and the consumers sense of self may be hierarchically linked throughan interconnected set of cognitive elements along with different levels of abstraction.Several authors defined typologies of brand associations on the basis of the level ofabstraction. For instance, Keller (1993) categorizes brand associations as attributes,benefits, and evaluative attitudes of a specific brand along the dimension of level ofabstraction. The role of complexity finds its rigueur in Eagly and Chaikens (1993)

work. The authors affirmed that the complexity of beliefs associated with an attitudeobject is typically defined as the dimensionality of the beliefs that a person holds aboutan attitude object, i.e. the number of dimensions needed to describe the space utilizedby the beliefs ascribed to the attitude. To the extend that an economy is market driven,the dimensionality of beliefs could be determined on the basis of their meaningscorresponding to the needs, wants, and interests of consumers (Medina and Duffy,1998). Specifically in satisfying consumers needs, Park et al. (1986) propose threebrand dimensions: symbolic benefits, experiential benefits, and functional benefits.Friedman and Lessig (1987) and Kirmani and Zeothaml (1991) classified brandassociations into three major categories namely attribute, benefit, and overall brand


4/17

APJML20,2

142

attitude. Attribute refers to the descriptive features that characterize a product orservice. Benefit is the personal value that consumers attach to the product or service,and brand overall attitude is consumers overall evaluation of the brand (Wilkie, 1986).Ideally, in consumers memory, brand image perception should encompass all three

types of brand associations (Hsieh et al., 2004), hence it is safe to predict amultidimensional structure of brand image. Adding the significant direct effect of COOinformation on brand image (taken as an overall concept) and the significantmoderating effect of brand and country reputations on the impact of COO informationon brand image perception; a brand image (taken as a multidimensional concept) islikely to exhibit different structure across brands and across countries of production.

Along this research we will try first to study the effect of different countries oforigin on brand image perception of two brands with different equities. Then themultidimensional structure of brand image will be checked. Finally, we will try to findhow brand image structure evolves across brands and across countries of production.The investigation will be done in Japan. Though, Japan is the brand-origin of manyfamous brands, it has been a country of investigation for brand image researches for

few times only (Usunier, 2006).

Literature reviewThe mutual effect of brand name and COO information on consumer perception hadbeen well studied (DAstous and Ahmad, 1999; Hsieh et al., 2004; Kotler and Gertner,2002; Nebenzahl et al., 2003; Papadopolous, 1993). Most of researches had proven asignificant effect of COO information and/or brand name on consumer perception. Asignificant impact of country image on brand image perception was well supported(DAstous and Ahmad, 1999; Hsieh et al., 2004; Hsieh and Lindridge, 2005; Cervino et al.,2005; Kotler and Gertner, 2002; Stennkamp et al., 2003). In line with these researches, weexpect that COO information will have a significant impact on brand image perception.Well-known COO for the product in question will have a positive significant impactwhile unknown Coo will have significant negative impact. Hui and Zhou (2003) studiedthe differential effect of the country of manufacture information on product beliefs andattitudes for brands with different levels of equity (high equity, low equity). The findingrevealed that the country of manufacturer information does not produce a significanteffect on the evaluation of branded products when this information is congruent withthe brand origin (i.e. Sony with Japan). However, when the product is manufactured in acountry with a less image than the country of the brand origin, country of manufacturerinformation produces a significant negative effect on product evaluation, and the effecttend to be more devastating for low equity than high equity brands.

H1a. COO information will affect significantly brand image perception.

H1b. Well-known COO for the product in question will have significant positiveeffect on brand image perception while unknown COO will have negativeimpact on brand image perception.

H1c. Brand level of reputation will moderate the effect of country of production onbrand image.

As concerns brand-origin effects, Takhor and Lavack (2003) declared that brand-originis one such cue that plays potentially important role in determining a brands image.Samieeet al.(2005) found that consumers classify brands with their COO basing on thebrand pronunciation or spelling and its similarity with the brand-origin language.


5/17

COO and branimag

14

When the brand is created, it comes out to consumers in association with its brand-

origin. Kenny and Aron (2001) investigated the pertinence of culture of origin vs COO

and their impacts on consumer brands classifications. Culture of brand origin (COBO)

was defined as the set of beliefs, attitudes, references, and inferences that a consumer

expresses when hearing, seeing, or reading about a brand. For example, when hearingVolks-vagen fox, consumers refer automatically to the engineering power of Germany

even though most of Volks-vagen cars are made in Brazil. Results showed that the

COBO had more presence in the mind of consumers and more easily identifiable than

the COO.

H2. Brand-origin will have a significant effect on brand image perception.

Brand image changes as production is outsourced. Cervino et al. (2005) found asignificant impact of product country image on brand performance. Hsieh and

Lindridge (2005) argued that brand image structure differs across countries. Nebenzahl

and Jaffe (1997) argued that the perceived value of the product is weighted average of

its perceived brand and Made in country values. This value can be higher or lowerthan the value of the brand without reference to the Made in country. Brand image is

found to be multidimensional (Hsieh, 2002; Hsieh and Lindridge, 2005). Hsieh and

Lindridge (2005) found that dimensions of a brand image differ across countries of

production. Brand-image is a set of perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand

associations held in the consumers memory. Aaker (1991) defines brand associations

as the category of brands assets and liabilities that include anything linked in

memory to a brand. Associations are informational nodes linked to the brand node in

memory that contains the meaning of the brand for consumers (Keller et al., 1998).Giving the fact that a persons memory is made of nodes and links (Farquhar and Herr,

1993) and has then a matricidal shape, we expect that brand image will have different

facets (dimensions) in consumers mind. A study across 20 countries by Hsieh (2002)supports a multidimensional brand image structure. Revealed dimensions transfer

consumers sensory, utilitarian, and symbolic and economic needs about a brand. Low

and Lamb (2000) found consistent with the idea that consumers have more developed

memory structures for more familiar brands that well-known brands tend to exhibit

multidimensional brand associations. Hence we predict a multidimensional aspect of

brand image.

H3. Brand image is multi-dimensional rather than an overall concept.

Because brands as overall concepts have different perceptions among consumers

across brands and across countries of production, and consumers are likely to be

different as they have different backgrounds and are under different circumstances ofconsumption; we expect that brand image structure (the set of dimensions that will

define each brand image) will differ across brands and across countries of production.

Hsieh (2002) through a study in 70 regions across 20 countries and along 53 brands

founds that brands exhibit different structures across countries of production and

across brands. Low and Lamb (2000) revealed different multidimensional brand

associations across brands and across product categories.

H4. Brand images structures will be significantly different across brands andacross countries of productions.


6/17

APJML20,2

144

MethodA factorial research design was used as shown in Table I.

Investigated products were electronics (digital camera and plasma TV). Two brandsoriginating from Japan, but with different levels of reputation, were studied namely,

Sony and Sanyo. Respondents were provided with information as concerns warranty(one year for camera and three years for TV) and after service (reparation andcomponents costs), which corresponds to the real case of marketed cameras andPlasma TV in Japan. In total ten combinations were drawn: eight brand-countrycombinations and one combination for each brand where no COO is mentioned. Thismethod ensures that country-images are not confounded by the respective brandimages (Nebenzahl and Jaffe, 1997), since well known brands (e.g. Sony) are associatedwith their respective home countries (Sauer et al., 1991); and enables us to test forbrand/brand-origin interaction. Each combination (Xij) was subject to an evaluation ona five-point scale (from 1: totally disagree to five: totally agree) along 15 criteria.

The questionnaire contains scale measuring consumers attitudes toward Sony andSanyo as produced in the four studied countries and when no COO is mentioned. The

scale encloses 15 items measuring the product quality, reliability, durability, style,market presence, etc. This scale was used before (Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987)and exhibited a high reliability. Respondents were asked in the end of the questionnaireto deliver some personal information related to the gender, age, occupation and yearlyspending for electronics. 200 residents (students, employees, and housewives) from anurban area in the city of Kobe (Japan) participated in this investigation. Investigationwas done by the researcher. Respondents were selected from a database of anelectronics retailer that uses member card system and operates in Kobe area. Theselection was based on the frequency of buying electronics from one of the retailersstores, age, and gender. The sample was distributed equally between males (100) andfemales (100). All the selected respondents were aged between 22 and 59 years. Oldpeople (aged more than 60 years) were not selected because they represent a very lowpercentage of card holders. In total, 129 questionnaires were available for statisticaluse. The answers rate is 64.5 per cent. 73 were males and 56 were females. Age inaverage is 42 years. Yearly spending for electronics is around 2,100USD. Respondentsexhibited a high familiarity with both brands.

An examination of scales reliability reveals an alpha of Cronbach superior to 0.8 forthis scale across all brands. Comparison of overall images between brands asproduction is outsourced was based on comparing the means values of respondentsscores along 15 items, by respondent. Table II summarizes those means by brand andby brand-COO match.

ANOVA reveals significant differences atp< 0.00 (F 17.08) across the two brandsas production is outsourced. Table III presents ANOVA results.

Table I.Factorial design

XijCountry Sony Sanyo

Japan X11 X21USA X12 X22China X13 X23Indonesia X14 X24Brand image without reference to country X i X1 X2


7/17

COO and branimag

14

Going to explore differences among each pair of brand images, we proceed by a serialoft-tests. Then a joint space mapping was derived from factorizing all brands imagestogether to see clearly how outsourcing activities affect brands images. In a third stagewe proceed by an exploratory factor analysis (EFC) to extract the dimensions that

define each brand image as production is outsourced. Statistically, the determinants ofthe dimensionality and the strength of brand associations are equivalent to the criteriaof extracting factors from a factor analysis, namely discriminant validity, reliability,and convergent validity. Discriminant validity is the degree to which extracted factors(e.g. image dimensions) are discriminated from one another, reliability is the extend towhich the multiple correlations in the observed variables (e.g. Brand associations) areaccounted for by the factor, and convergent validity is measured by the value of thecorrelation coefficients between observed variables and their corresponding factors(e.g. image dimension). Because our objective is to see how moving across countries ofproduction and across brands may affect brand image structure, we factorize eachbrand image separately. Then, EFC was followed by a confirmatory factor analysis(CFA). CFA provides a powerful tool for examining the reliability and the validity of

image dimensionality (Hsieh, 2002). CFA was carried out using data collected from asample of 180 Japanese students. Students were asked to fill the same questionnaire.One hundred and fifty-two questionnaires were available for statistical use. Age inaverage of the respondents was 21 years. Respondents expressed high familiarity withbrands, the four countries, and the investigated products.

FindingsOverall Sony and Sanyo images are higher when the product is made in Japan and startto decrease continuously when the production is shifted to USA, China, and Indonesia.Differences between Sony-Japan/Sony-China and Sony-Japan/Sony-Indonesia aresignificant at p < 0.05. However, difference between Sony-Japan/Sony-USA was notsignificant. It was exactly the same as concerns Sanyo. ThusH1a is confirmed.

Differences between Sony/Sony-USA, Sony/Sony-China, and Sony/Sony-Indonesiawere significant at p < 0.00 except for Sony/Sony-USA with p < 0.1. The image ofSony when no COO is mentioned had been deteriorated when USA, China, and

Table IANOVA resu

Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Between groups 17.664 9 1.963 17.086 0.000Within groups 16.082 140 0.115Total 33.746 149

Table Means of joint bran

country ratin

Country Sony image Sanyo image

Japan 3.8 3.37USA 3.44 3.3China 3.03 2.86Indonesia 2.85 2.72

Without reference to any country 3.69 3.23


8/17

APJML20,2

146

Indonesia were mentioned as countries of origin. The highest deterioration was withSony-Indonesia (0.84) followed by Sony-China (0.66) and finally Sony-USA (0.25).Differences between Sanyo/Sanyo-China and Sanyo/Sanyo-Indonesia were significantatp < 0.00. Sanyo image when no COO is mentioned had been deteriorated when

produced in China and Indonesia. The highest deterioration was with Sanyo-Indonesia(0.51) followed by Sanyo-China (0.47). However, it keeps almost the same image whenproduced in Japan and USA. Sony and Sanyo were affected differently across the fourcountries of production. Sony expressed more erosion than Sanyo when moving from awell-known country to a less famous one. H1b and H1c are confirmed. Differencebetween Sanyo/Sanyo-Japan and Sanyo/Sanyo-USA were not significant. Similarly, nosignificant difference was revealed between Sony/Sony-Japan. Thus H2 is confirmed.Figure 1 summarizes the means in Table II and shows clearly how brand image differacross brands and across countries of production.

Joint space mapping of brand-COOIn a second stage, going to gain on accuracy in assessing how exactly outsourcingactivities affect brand image, we proceed, as recommended by Heslop andPapadopoulos (1993), by factorizing all brands images taken together. Following PCA(principal components analysis using Varimax rotation) results, we provide a jointspace mapping that enables readers to see more clearly what is affected in each brandimage as produced in a given country (Figure 2). PCA revealed two factors with 94.64per cent of explained variance. The first factor contributes for 84.8 per cent and thesecond factor for 9.84 per cent (Table IV). All communalities are quite high.

The first factor represents the product value (highly correlated items are: made withmeticulous, good performers, long lasting, easy to repair, high quality). The secondfactor transfers product style and market presence. An interactive chart was generatedfrom the two factors. Sony image when produced in Japan has gained in product value

and lost in market presence and style comparing to its image when no COO ismentioned. For Sanyo-Japan, it gained on both product value and market presence.Sony-USA is less perceived on product value and more perceived on market presencethan Sony and Sony-Japan. It is almost same for Sanyo-USA but with a largerdifference. Sony-China, Sony-Indonesia, Sanyo-China and Sanyo-Indonesia are lessperceived on both product value and style and market presence, respectively, thanSony, Sony-Japan, and Sony-USA; and Sanyo, Sanyo-Japan, and Sanyo-USA. When

Figure 1.Brand images scoresacross country ofproduction


9/17

COO and branimag

14

production was shifted to China, product value of Sony was strongly affected and theproducts market presence and style was moderately affected. It was almost same effectfor Sony-Indonesia. In case of Sanyo-China, product value was deteriorated; however, itgained on market presence and style. Sanyo-Indonesia image was strongly deterioratedon both factors comparing to its image when no country is mentioned.

Table IFactor analysis of

brands imag

Items First factor Second factor Communality

Inexpensive 0.718 0.611 0.890Highly technical 0.637 0.759 0.983Made with meticulous 0.892 0.405 0.959Innovative 0.566 0.796 0.954Luxurious 0.478 0.859 0.967Sold worldwide 0.095 0.930 0.874Good looking 0.499 0.847 0.967Good performers 0.858 0.495 0.981Heavily advertised in Japan 0.857 0.411 0.902Do not need frequent repairs 0.911 0.394 0.952Marketed in a wide range of styles 0.417 0.882 0.951Long lasting 0.865 0.445 0.946Informative in their ads 0.733 0.665 0.953

Easy to repair in Japan 0.952 0.139 0.927High quality consumers items 0.823 0.561 0.992Explained variance 84.8% 9.84%

Figure Joint space map brand-image acro

country of producti


10/17

APJML20,2

148

Exploratory factor analysisTo assess differences among brand-images structure across countries of production,first an EFC was run for each brand-image separately, then a CFA was run to test thegoodness of fit of the revealed structures.

EFC reveals a bi-dimensional image for Sony when no COO is mentioned.The first dimension (32.4 per cent) transfers product quality and the second one(11.61 per cent) transfers product durability. Alternately a tri-dimensional imagewas revealed for Sanyo. The first factor (42.50 per cent) emphasizes productdurability. The second factor (10.62 per cent) emphasizes product show(luxurious, good looking). The third dimension (8.29 per cent) focus on productcommunication and serviceability in Japan. Sony-Japan was tri-dimensional.The first factor (29.96 per cent) emphasizes product durability. The second(13.16 per cent) transfers product show and communication. The third (9.74per cent) emphasizes the product know-how. However, it was a bi-dimensionalstructure for Sanyo-Japan. The first dimension (45.34 per cent) emphasizesproduct high quality. The second one (8.86 per cent) transfer product-show(good looking) and international market presence (sold worldwide). Sony-Chinawas tri-dimensional. The first dimension (37.6 per cent) emphasizes productdurability. The second (12.75 per cent) emphasizes product availability andthe last one (8.66 per cent) transfers innovation and serviceability. Alternately abi-dimensional structure for Sanyo-China image was revealed. The first one(44.41 per cent) emphasizes product quality and durability. The second one(9.23 per cent) emphasizes product-show. A bi-dimensional image was revealedfor Sony-Indonesia. The first factor (44.04 per cent) emphasizes product qualityand know-how. The second one (9.6 per cent) focuses on communication andmarket presence. Similarly, a bi-dimensional image for Sanyo-Indonesia wasrevealed. The first dimension (50.59 per cent) emphasizes product value. The

second one (8.02 per cent) emphasizes product communication and marketpresence. Sony-USA was bi-dimensional. The first dimension (35.13 per cent)emphasizes product durability. The second one (13.19 per cent) emphasizesproduct style and communication. Differently EFA revealed a tri-dimensionalstructure for Sanyo-USA image. The first dimension (39.14 per cent) emphasizesproduct communication. The second dimension (11.05 per cent) pictorialsproduct durability and higher quality. The last one (8.25 per cent) illustratesproduct higher technicality.

Still in an exploratory phase, it is clear that both Sony and Sanyo had differentimage structures. Similarly, Sony and Sanyo had had different image structures as theirproductions were shifted from one country to another.

Although, EFA allows us to support, but with a considerable risk, our thirdhypothesis, we think it is rigorous to test the stability of the above structures in order toconfirm Sony and Sanyo images. Thus we propose to proceed by a CFA using astructural equation modeling.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)A structural equation modeling using AMOS 4 served as a basis for our CFA. Startingfrom EFA results, a model was drawn for each combination. Table V illustrates thegoodness of fit of each model in term of Chi-square, NFI, CFI, CMIN/DF, RMSEA, andHOELTER coefficients.


11/17

COO and branimag

14

Eight images structures were supported (Sony, Sony-Japan, Sony-China, Sony-USA, Sanyo, Sanyo-China, Sanyo-Indonesia, and Sanyo-USA) and two wererejected (Sony-Indonesia and Sanyo-Japan). Sony, Sony-China, Sanyo-China, Sanyo-Indonesia, and Sanyo-USA images structures are strongly supported. All the latter

structures enjoyed reliable indices in term of NFI (so near to one), CFI (so near toone), RMSEA (between 0.05 and 0.08), and Hoelter (superior to 200). As concernsSony-Japan, Sony-USA, and Sanyo image structures; goodness of fit indices are notso far to be reliable for a fitted model. Although, it is safer to rely on a pattern ofindices to judge the fitness of a model, we can experience many studies wereresearchers rely just on one or two indices. The judgment is, to some extend,subjective. NFI and CFI indices are not so far from one. Hoelter indices were lessthan 200 which highlight a problem with the sample size. In the case of Sony-Indonesia and Sanyo-Japan, it is unsafe to admit the EFA structure. The goodnessof fit indices are far to be of a fitted model. Therefore, Sony-Indonesia and Sanyo-

Japan image structures are rejected. Moreover, one correlation was needed in thecase of Sanyo to reach a good fit of its image structure. It was between the items

10 (do not need frequent repairs) and 12 (long lasting). As James Arbuckle, theauthor of AMOS mentioned in the user guide of the program, when a correlationis needed to enhance the models goodness of fit, researchers has to provideexplanations that support these correlations; we interpret the correlation betweendo not need frequent repairs and long lasting by the fact that products that donot need frequent repairs are likely to be of good quality and strong enough tolast for a long period.

Based on these results, we can affirm with more confidence that the images ofSony, Sony-Japan, Sony-China, Sony-USA, Sanyo-China, Sanyo-Indonesia, andSanyo-USA have numerous facets in consumers mind and tend to have amultidimensional structure. These structures differ between each others. Differencesare detected along the same brand across countries of production, and across brandsthemselves. Sony, Sony-USA, Sanyo-China, Sanyo-Indonesia are bi-dimensional.However, Sony-Japan, Sony-China, Sanyo, and Sanyo-USA are tri-dimensional. Sonywhen no COO is mentioned reveals a bi-dimensional structure taking quality as thefirst dimension and product durability as the second one. Sanyo image was tri-dimensional taking durability as the most important dimension followed by productshow and finally product communication. Looking at Sony-Japan, Sony-China, Sony-USA, Sanyo-China, Sanyo-USA, and Sanyo-Indonesia, we can recognize differences

Table Coefficients summarizi

each models goodneof

Chi-square CMIN/DF NFI CFI RMSEA HOELTER

Sony 9.032 1.644 0.993 0.996 0.078 242Sony-Japan 8.456 1.986 0.993 0.990 0.091 185Sony-China 18.02 1.238 0.992 0.995 0.046 216Sony-Indonesia 50.68 5.243 0.983 0.977 0.165 48Sony-USA 21.32 2.145 0.994 0.991 0.096 142Sanyo 23.72 1.790 0.991 0.989 0.092 187Sanyo-Japan 47.64 3.830 0.976 0.981 0.132 79Sanyo-China 9.62 1.293 0.996 0.992 0.056 213Sanyo-Indonesia 6.982 1.878 0.992 0.996 0.079 245Sanyo-USA 14.15 1.283 0.989 0.996 0.049 231


12/17

APJML20,2

150

between the two brands images structures, when they are not labeled any COO,when they are labeled the same COO, and when they are labeled different COO.Differences marked the degree of fragmentation (number of dimensions), thecomposition of each image (what factors), and the impacts weight of each dimension.

The loadings of all items on their respective factors (dimensions) are significant forthe eight confirmed image structures. Thats to say that the selected items throughthe EFA contribute significantly in forming their respective dimension. Therefore,our third and fourth hypotheses are confirmed. Brand image structure ismultidimensional (H3) and it was affected differently across country of productionand across brands (H4).

Interpretations and marketing implicationsFirst, alienated with past researches, COO had had a significant impact on brand imageperception. Both highly reputed brands and less reputed brands are affected butdifferently. High reputed brands experience more erosion when production is shifted toothers countries than the brand-origin. Less reputed brands may benefit from their

production in their brand-origin if the brand-origin is well perceived as a producer ofthe product in question. It was the case of Sanyo-Japan that was highly perceived thana Sony-China or Sony-Indonesia.

Consistent with Thakor and Kohli (1996), the effect of brand-origin onconsumer perception appears to be significant. Images of Sony and Sanyo whenno COO is mentioned and their images when produced in Japan were almostsame; however, their images when produced in USA, China, and Indonesia weresignificantly different (except for Sanyo-Sanyo USA: not significant). Consumers,automatically, classify Sony and Sanyo as Japanese products, when no COO isgiven. Their evaluations of Sony and Sanyo when produced in otherscountries than Japan will be with reference to a Sony-Japan or Sanyo-Japan.While globalization process speeds up outsourcing activities and squeezesinvestment and trade barriers (macro level), companies are still facing culturaland consumer behavior barriers (micro level). Japanese consumers still perceivea Sony or Sanyo made in China, Indonesia, or even USA as product inferior to aSony-Japan or Sanyo-Japan. Erosion, when passing from Japan to China orIndonesia, is to some extend expected and found in past researches. However,erosion of Sony image when passing from Japan to USA seems to be due to astrong brand-origin effect. DAstous and Ahmad (1999) found similarly, that thehigh class BMW image was eroded when production was shifted from Germany toUSA. To some extend, German and Japanese have a common cultural characteristic,namely, a relatively developed ethnocentrism, which influences the way theyperceive German, respectively, Japanese brands as produced in their home country

or abroad. A second interesting point is that the above phenomenon (erosion ofSony-USA) did not happen with Sanyo. Similarly, in line with DAstous and Ahmad(1999), the brand tightness to the brand-origin may serves as reason. DAstous andAhmad (1999) found that only the high class BMW that was affected whenproduced in USA comparing to its image when produced in Germany. Othersbrands were not affected by such delocalization. It was almost same in thisresearch; indeed, Sony is more in tie with Japan than Sanyo. Investors should putinto consideration the brand-origin, brand reputation, and the link brand/brand-origin when thinking about a delocalization. It is wise sometimes to hide the COOinformation if a negative impact on brand image is expected and benefit from


13/17

COO and branimag

15

the effect of brand-origin on brand perception (consumers assumption that thebrand is produced in the brand-origin if no COO is mentioned). Moreover,marketing actions should be customized across brands, across countries, and acrossbrand-COO combinations.

Brand image is multidimensional rather than an overall concept. EFA and CFAproved the multidimensional aspect of brand image structure. Multidimensionalityimplies a need among consumers for multiple information as concerns the brand. Theymay refer to several dimensions (quality, style, durability, etc) to fix a final judgment.One brand may encompass all these dimensions in consumers minds. Marketersshould provide consumers with the maximum of information as concerns the brand inorder to satisfy their need for information along different dimensions. Brands imagesstructures appear to be different across brands and across countries of production.Knowing the dimensions of brand-country image enables marketers to determine amore definitive marketing strategy.

Brand image structure changes along different COO. This change is more intensewith less reputed brands. Sony image, along the four studied COO, had had durability

as the dominant dimension, and communication as the second dimension. Minordifferences were revealed with Sony-Indonesia where consumers express a need formarket presence, with Sony-China where consumers express a need for productavailability, and with Sony-USA where they express a need for product style. However,these differences were revealed along the second or the third dimension. The latterdimensions explain a relatively low variance compared to the first dimension. Asconcerns Sanyo images, they experience major differences across countries ofproduction. Durability was the dominant dimension with Sanyo. However, it wasquality and durability with Sanyo-China, product value with Sanyo-Indonesia, andproduct communication with Sanyo-USA. Changes were remarkable too along thesecond most important dimension. The conjoint effect of country image and brandreputation had had an influence on brand image structure. Product development andadvertisement strategies should be alienated to these influences. Marketing strategiesfor bi-national products should encompass the matricidal impact of brands level ofreputation and country image on brand image structure held in consumers minds andthen on their overall judgment.

Conclusions and future researchCOO did influence consumers overall perception of brands. Influences were differentacross highly reputed brands and less reputed brands. Brand-origin is found to be ofsignificant impact on brand image perception. The effect of country image on brandimage is so strong. It may overcome the power of well-known brands in shaping brandimage in consumer mind. Marketers should customize their actions across brands and

across countries of production. Both, brands level of reputation and country imageimpacts should be taken into account when elaborating marketing operations for bi-national products. Brand image has several facets in consumers imagination. It isfound to be multidimensional. Dimensions differ across country of production andacross brands. Marketers should look on what dimension(s) to provide for consumersfor each brand produced in a specific country. As any research, this research has itslimitation. First it dealt with one type of product (electronics). Other products should beinvestigated. Future researches may spend effort in investigating less or more complexproducts. Second as it deal with an aspect of consumer behavior, it is interesting toincorporate some cultural (e.g. collectivism/individualism) and personal (e.g. need for


14/17

APJML20,2

152

affect/need for cognition) characteristics and test their effect on brand image alongdifferent COO.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991),Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.

Ahmed, S.A. and dAstous, A. (1996), Country of origin and brand effects: a multi-dimensional

and multi-attribute study,Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2,p. 93.

Alba, J.W. and Marmorstein, H. (1987), The effects of frequency knowledge on consumer

decision making,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 14-25.

Al-sulaiti, K.I. and Baker, M.J. (1998), Country of origin effects: a literature review, MarketingIntelligence Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.

Anderson, P. H. and Chao, P. (2003), Country of origin effects in global industrial sourcing:

toward an integrated framework, Management International Review, Vol. 43 No. 4,pp. 339-60.

Cervino, J., Sanchez, J. and Cubillo, J.M. (2005), Made in effect, competitive marketing strategy

and brand performance: an empirical analysis for Spanish brands,Journal of AmericanAcademy of Business, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 237-43.

Czepiec, H. and Cosmas, S. (1983), Exploring the meaning of made in: a look at national

stereotypes, product evaluations, and hybrids, paper presented at Annual Meeting of the

Academy of International Business, San Francisco, CA.

DAstous, A. and Ahmad, A.S. (1999), The importance of the country images in the formation

of the consumer product perceptions, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 108-125.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990), In search of brand image: a foundation analysis,

in Low, G. S. and Lamb, C. W. (2000), the measurement and dimensionality of

brand associations, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6,

pp. 350-62.Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993),The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Fort

Worth, TX.

Erickson, G.A., Johansson, J.K. and Chao, P. (1984), Image variables in multi-attribute

product evaluations: country of origin effects,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 694-9.

Farquhar, P.H. and Herr, P.M. (1993), The dual structure of brand associations in Hsieh, M.H.

(2002), Identifying brand image dimensionality and measuring the degree of brand

globalization: a cross-national study, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 46-67.

Friedman, R. and Lessig, V.P. (1986), A framework of psychological meaning of products,

Advances of consumer research, Vol. 13, pp. 338-42.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction toTheory and Research, Addison Wisley, Reading, MA.

Gutman, J. (1982), A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 60-72.

Heslop, L. and Papadopoulos, C. (1993), But who knows where and when: reflections on

the images of countries and their products in Nenbenzahl, I. and Jaffe, D.E. (1997),

Measuring the joint effect of brand and country image in consumer evaluation of

global products, Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 3 No. 3,pp. 190-207.


15/17

COO and branimag

15

Holbrook, M.B. (1978), Beyond attitude structure: toward the informational determinants of

attitude in Erickson, G.A., Johansson, J.K. and Chao, P. (1984), Image variables in multi-

attribute product evaluations: country of origin effects, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 694-9.

Hsieh, M.H. (2002), Identifying brand image dimensionality and measuring the degree of brandglobalization: a cross-national study, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 46-67.

Hsieh, M.H. and Lindridge, A. (2005), Universal appeals with local specifications, The Journalof Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 14-28.

Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L. and Setiono, R. (2004), Product-, corporate-, and country-image

dimensions and purchase behavior: a multicountry analysis, Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 251-70.

Huber, J. and McCann, J. (1982), The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations,Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 324-33.

Hui, K.M. and Zhou, L. (2003), Country of manufacture effects for known brands, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos. 1-2, pp. 133-53.Johansson, J.K. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (1986), Multinational production: effect on brand value,

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 101-27.

Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer based brand equity,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp.1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2000), The brand report card,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, pp. 147-57.

Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E. and Houston, M.J. (1998), The effects of brand name suggestiveness on

advertising recall,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, January, pp. 48-57.

Kenny, L. and Aron, O. (2001), Consumer brand classifications: an assessment of culture

of origin versus country of origin, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 120-36.

Kirmani, A. and Zeothaml, V. (1991), Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image inAaker, D. and Alexander, L.B. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertisings

Role in Building Strong Brands, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,pp. 143-61.

Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002), Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place marketing and

brand management perspective,Journal of Brand Management, London, Vol. 9 Nos. 4-5,pp. 249-62.

Koubaa, Y. (2006), COO: who uses it, when and how it is used, paper presented at the 9th

Conference on Global Business and Technologies Association, Taiwan.

Levitt, T. (1983), The globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, May-June,pp. 263-70.

Low, S.G. and Lamb, W.C., Jr. (2000), The measurement and dimensionality of brand

associations, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350.

Medina, J.F. and Duffy, M.F. (1998), Standardization vs. globalization: a new perspective

of brand strategies, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,pp. 223-43.

Meenaghan, T. (1995), The role of advertising in brand image development,Journal of Productand Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 23-34.

Nenbenzahl, I and Jaffe, D.E. (1997), Measuring the joint effect of brand and country image in

consumer evaluation of global products,Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied MarketingScience, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 190-207.


16/17

APJML20,2

154

Nebenzahl, D.I., Eugene, D.J. and Usinier, J.C. (2003), Personifying country of origin research,Management International Review, Vol. 43, p. 383.

OShaughnessy, J. and OShaughnessy, N.J. (2000), Treating the nation as a brand: someneglected issues in Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, M.A. (2003), Effect of perceived brand

origin associations on consumer perceptions of quality, The Journal of Product and BrandManagement, Vol. 12 Nos. 6-7, p. 394.

Papadopolous, N. (1993), What product country images are and are not in Al-sulaiti, K.I. andBaker, M.J. (1998), Country of origin effects: a literature review, Marketing Intelligence

Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.

Parameswaran, R. and Yaprak, A. (1987), A cross-national comparison of consumer researchmeasures,Journal of International Business Studies, Spring, pp. 35-49.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, J.B. and Maclnnis, J.D. (1986), Strategic brand concept-imagemanagement, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 135-45.

Pfister, R.H. (2003), Decision making is painful- we knew it all along, Journal of BehavioralDecision Making, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 73.

Ratliff, R. (1989), Wheres that new car made? Many Americans dont know, in Thakor, M.V.

and Anne, M.L. (2003), effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumerperceptions of quality, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6/7,p. 394.

Roth, M.S and Romeo, J.B (1992), Matching product category and country image perceptions: aframework for managing country of origin effects, Journal of International Business

studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97.

Samiee, S., Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (2005), Brand origin recognition accuracy: itsantecedents and consumers cognitive limitations, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 36, pp. 379-97.

Sauer, P.L., Young, M.A. and Unnava, H.R. (1991), An experimental investigation of theprocesses behind the country of origin effect, Journal of International Consumer

Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 29-59.

Scott, S.L. and Keith, F.J. (2005), The automatic country of origin effects on brand judgment,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34, pp. 87-98.

Steenkamp, E.M., Jan-Benedict., Rajeev, B. and Dana, L.A (2003), How perceived brandglobalness creates brand value, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 53-66.

Thakor, M.V. and Kohli, C.S. (1996), Brand origin: conceptualization and review, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 27-42.

Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, M.A. (2003), Effect of perceived brand origin associations onconsumer perceptions of quality,The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 12Nos. 6-7, p. 394.

Thorndike, E.L. (1920), A consistent error in psychological ratings, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 4, pp. 25-9.

Usunier, J.C. (2006), Relevance in business research: the case of country of origin research inmarketing,European Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 60-75.

Wilkie, W. (1986), Consumer Behavior, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Further reading

Kotler, P., Haider, D.H. and Rein, I. (1993), Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, andTourism to Cities, States, and Nations, Free Press in Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002),Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place marketing and brand managementperspective,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos. 4-5, pp. 249-62.


17/17

COO and branimag

15

Miyasaki, A.D., Grewal, D. and Goodstein, R.C. (2005), Re-inquiries: the effect on multipleextrinsic cues on quality perceptions: a matter of consistency, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 146-53.

Papadopolous, N., Heslop, L., Graby, F. and Avlonitis, G. (1987), Does country of origin matter?

Some findings from a cross-cultural study of consumer views about foreign products inAl-sulaiti, K.I. and Baker, M.J. (1998), Country of origin effects: a literature review,Marketing Intelligence Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 150-99.

Shlomo, I.L. and Jaffe, E.D. (1998), A dynamic approach to country of origin effect, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos. 1-2, pp. 61-78.

Corresponding authorYamen Koubaa can be contacted at: [email protected] or [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

banik-country of origin, brand image perception and brand image structure-eng (17 pages)_442242

Documents