Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Çokuluslu Kuruluşlarla Yerli Kuruluşların Reklam Ajanslarıyla İlişkilerindeki Farklılıklar

Do MNCs and Local Companies Differ in Their Relationship With Agencies?

Pages
87–102
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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 study suggests that multinationals are more formalized in their management of agency relationships.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This exploratory study investigates the differences between local companies and multinational subsidiaries in their advertising agency-client relationships in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A survey utilizing personal interviews was conducted with 52 of Turkey’s top advertisers (27 of them foreign-equity companies) to determine if multinational subsidiaries’ practices towards their advertising agencies or their level of satisfaction with various aspects of agency service and the relationship differed from those of local companies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study suggests that multinationals are more formalized in their management of agency relationships.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This exploratory study investigates the differences between local companies and multinational subsidiaries in their advertising agency-client relationships in Turkey. A survey utilizing personal interviews was conducted with 52 of Turkey’s top advertisers (27 of them foreign-equity companies) to determine if multinational subsidiaries’ practices towards their advertising agencies or their level of satisfaction with various aspects of agency service and the relationship differed from those of local companies. Some significant differences in practices and in the length of association emerged. Satisfaction levels, however, did not reveal any significant differences. The study suggests that multinationals are more formalized in their management of agency relationships.

Özet

Yerli firmalar ve Türkiye’deki çokuluslu firmaların reklam ajanslarıyla ilişkilerindeki farklılıkları inceleyen keşifsel çalışma, Türkiye’nin en büyük 101 reklamveren kuruluşundan 52’sinin yöneticileriyle yapılananketlerden yararlanmaktadır. 27’si yabancı sermayeli olan bu kuruluşların yöneticileriyle yüz yüze görüşülerek çokuluslu firmaların reklam ajansı hizmetinin çeşitli yönlerine ilişkin memnuniyeti, ajanslarından duyduğu genel memnuniyet ve ajanslarıyla ilişkilerindeki uygulamalar açısından yerli kuruluşlarla aralarında farklılık olup olmadığı araştırılmıştır. Ajans yönetimine ilişkin reklamveren uygulamalarında ve ajansla ilişkinin süresinde önemli farklılıklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak, memnuniyet düzeylerinde herhangi bir farklılığa rastlanmamıştır. Bulgular, çokuluslu kuruluşların reklam ajanslarıyla ilişkilerinin yönetiminde yerli kuruluşlara göre daha kurumlaşmış oldukları sonucuna işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLSOY, T. (2022). Çokuluslu Kuruluşlarla Yerli Kuruluşların Reklam Ajanslarıyla İlişkilerindeki Farklılıklar. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 87–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/490741

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Advertising Association of Turkey (2007a). Advertising Investments. Retrieved May 13, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rd.org.tr. Advertising Association of Turkey (2007b). Turkish Advertising at a Glance. Retrieved May 13, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rd.org.tr.
  2. Association of National Advertisers (2005). The State of Client / Agency Relations. Presented at the Agency Relations Forum, 15 September. Retrieved October 22, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://206.112.94.246/dbtw-ppt/conf05/091505Bension.pdf.
  3. Aydın, N. and Terpstra, V. (1981). Marketing Know-How Transfers by Multinationals: A Case Study in Turkey. Journal of International Business Studies, 12 (Winter), 35-48.
  4. Beals, D. and Lundin, R.H. (2004). Trends in Agency Compensation, 13th Edition.
  5. New York, NY: Association of National Advertisers, Inc. Bileşim Medya. (2005). The List of Turkey’s Top Advertisers Based on Gross Measurable Media Spending for 2004. [Data file kindly provided by Bileşim Medya in May, 2005].
  6. Buchanan, B. and Michell, P.C. (1991). Using Structural Factors to Assess the Risk of Failure in Agency-Client Relations. Journal of Advertising Research, (August/September), 68-75.
  7. Buğra, A. (1994). State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  8. Central Bank of Turkey (2007). International Investment Position. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tcmb.gov.tr.
  9. Chevalier, M. and Catry, B. (1978). Advertising in France: The Advertiser-Advertising Agency Relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 10 (1), 49-59.
  10. Erden, D. (1988). Impact of Multinational Companies on Host Countries: Executive Training Programs. Management International Review, 28 (3), 39-47.
  11. Erden, D. (1996). A Survey of Foreign Direct Investment Firms in Turkey. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University. European Association of Advertising Agencies. (1994). Client-Advertising Agency Partnerships in the New Europe: A Fresh Look at How to Reach the Right Agreements on Remuneration and Exclusivity. Oxfordshire, UK: NTC Publications Ltd. Fikret-Paşa, S., Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (2001).
  12. Society, Organisations, and Leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 (4), 559-589.
  13. Gürsoy, G. and Aydoğan, K. (2002).
  14. Equity Ownership Structure, Risk Taking, and Performance. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 38(6), (November-December), 6-25.
  15. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Insti