Journals / Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18

EFFECT OF PRODUCTS’ COUNTRY OF MANUFACTURE INFORMATION AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COUNTRY IMAGE, PRICE FAIRNESS, AND PRICE‐QUALITY SCHEMA

ÜRÜNLERİN ÜRETİLDİKLERİ ÜLKELERE YÖNELİK BİLGİ VE TÜKETİCİLERİN ÜLKE İMAJI, FİYAT ADALETİ İLE FİYAT‐KALİTE ŞEMASI ALGILAMALARI ARASINDAKİ FARKLILIKLAR

Pages
1–13
Publication Date
2016-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The multivariate test results MANCOVA showed that macro and micro country image, price fairness, and price‐quality schema significantly differ between given countries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Marketing academics have long been interpreted the effect of countries and their images within the scope of consumers’ preferences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, through a survey based on the two‐group design “made in Germany” vs “made in China” , primary data from 312 women living in Mersin has been collected and the data was used to test the difference between two countries that manufacture the same cosmetic product by means of macro and micro country image, price fairness, and price‐quality schema.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The multivariate test results MANCOVA showed that macro and micro country image, price fairness, and price‐quality schema significantly differ between given countries.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ülke imajı · üretim yeri · fiyat adaleti algısı

Abstract

Marketing academics have long been interpreted the effect of countries and their images within the scope of consumers’ preferences. Since price and quality are leading marketplace cues among other factors, the influence of “made in” information in evaluating products is needed to be specifically focused. In this study, through a survey based on the two‐group design “made in Germany” vs “made in China” , primary data from 312 women living in Mersin has been collected and the data was used to test the difference between two countries that manufacture the same cosmetic product by means of macro and micro country image, price fairness, and price‐quality schema. The multivariate test results MANCOVA showed that macro and micro country image, price fairness, and price‐quality schema significantly differ between given countries.

Özet

Pazarlama akademisyenleri uzun süredir ülkelerin ve ülkelerin etkilerini tüketi‐ ci tercihleri bağlamında yorumlamaktadırlar. Fiyat ve kalite, pazar ile ilgili ipuç‐ larının en başında gelmesinden dolayı, ürünleri değerlendirmede “üretim yeri” bilgisinin etkisine özellikle odaklanılması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada iki grup‐ lu deneysel tasarıma “Almanya’da üretilmiştir” ve “Çin’de üretilmiştir” dayalı anketler yoluyla Mersin’de yaşayan 312 kadın tüketiciden veriler elde edilmiş ve aynı kozmetik ürününü üreten iki ülke arasında, makro ve mikro ülke imajı, fiyat adaleti algısı ile fiyat‐kalite şeması bağlamında farklılıklar test edilmiştir. Çok değişkenli test sonuçları MANCOVA , iki ülke arasında makro ve mikro ülke imajı, fiyat adaleti algısı ile fiyat‐kalite şeması açısından anlamlı farklılıklar bulunduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATILGAN, K. Ö., YILMAZ, N. (2016). EFFECT OF PRODUCTS’ COUNTRY OF MANUFACTURE INFORMATION AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COUNTRY IMAGE, PRICE FAIRNESS, AND PRICE‐QUALITY SCHEMA. Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 18, 1–13. https://ajindex.com/articles/372057

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Agarwal, S. ve Sikri, S. (1996). Country Image: Consumer Evaluation of Product Category Extensions. International Marketing Review, 13(8): 23‐ 39. Akdeniz Ar, A. ve Kara, A. (2014). Emerging Market Consumers’ Country of Production Image, Trust, and Quality Perceptions of Global Brands Made‐ in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(7): 491‐ 503. Bilkey, W. J. ve Nes, E. (1982). Country‐of‐Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(1): 89‐ 100. Campbell, M. C. (1999). “Why Did You Do That?” The Important Role of Inferred Motive in Perceptions of Price Fairness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(2): 145‐152. Celuch, K. ve Taylor, S. A. (1999). Involvement with Services: An Empirical Replication And Extension Of Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement Inventory. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 12: 109‐122. Chao, P. (1993). Partitioning Country of Origin Effects: Consumer Evaluations of A Hybrid Product. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2): 291‐306. Eroglu, S. A. ve Machleit, K. A. (1989). Effects of Individual and Product‐Specific Variables on Utilising Country of Origin as a Product Quality Cue. International Marketing Review, 6(6): 27‐41. Han, C. M. ve Terpstra, V. (1988). Country of Origin Effects for Uni‐National and Bi‐National Products. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2): 235‐255. Han, C. M. (1989). Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?. Journal of Mar‐ keting Research, 26: 222‐229. Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., Huber, F. (2007). The Influence of Price Fairness on Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical Test in the Context of Automobile Purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(1):49‐58. Homburg, C., Totzek, D., Krämer, M. (2014). How Price Complexity Takes Its Toll: The Neglected Role of A Simplicity Bias and Fairness in Price Evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 67(6): 1114‐1122. Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P., Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4): 388‐396. Keller, K. L. (1993).
  2. Conceptualizing, Measuring And Managing Customer‐ Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 1‐22. Kim, C. K. ve Chung, J. Y. (1997).
  3. Brand Popularity, Country Image and Market Share: An Empirical Study. Journal of International Business Studies. 28(2): 361‐386. Koschate‐Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A.,