the effect of country of origin on product evaluation - IngentaConnect ...

Decision support for global marketing strategies: the effect of country of origin on product evaluation Masood A. Badri, Donald L. Davis and Donna F. Davis

Introduction The Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman) market has evolved into an attractive target not only for industrialized countries but, significantly, for many developing nations as well. This trend has important implications for the marketer, as management must be sensitive to local consumer perceptions of those products when formulating appropriate strategies for their exports. Understanding consumer attitudes

Consumer attitudes toward the products of a particular nation are of major importance in determining international marketing strategies. For example, Gulf States consumers have an unfavorable perception of products from certain nations (Badri, 1992, 1994). Obviously, it would be beneficial to all, including Gulf State distributors of foreign products, to understand consumer attitudes toward their products. The importance of variables such as price, promotional messages and distribution policy in influencing consumer perceptions and attitudes toward products is well established (Hong and Wyer, 1990; Lee and Miller, 1992; Monroe, 1976; Wall et al., 1991; White and Cundiff, 1978). However, the impact of the additional information provided by “made in …” has attracted little research attention in the Gulf States; a fact which, in view of the increasing orientation toward this market in international trade, suggests a need for this course of inquiry for those involved in Gulf State markets.

Quality perceptions

Both empirical observations and experiments suggest that country of origin has a considerable influence on the quality perceptions of a product. Because these quality perceptions are a reality and are not easily overcome, it is suggested that, in the short run, the best hope for successful counteraction lies in inquiry, understanding, and imagination directed toward the formulation of marketing strategies which will accommodate, avoid, or circumvent the resulting bias. This article presents the results of a study conducted among Gulf States businesspeople concerning their attitudes toward products made in the USA, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Taiwan. The majority of the imports into the Gulf States originate in these countries (Badri, 1992, 1994). The attitudes reported herein should provide support for those decision makers developing a strategy for marketing products in the Gulf States. With the increasing emphasis by companies on international markets, a major determinant of multinational success will be multicultural consumer analyses (Monroe, 1976; Schooler, 1971; Tse and Gorn, 1993; Watson, The authors wish to thank Professors Khalid Al Khaja and Abdullah Al-Bannai of the United Arab Emirates University (Foreign Language Department).

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 4 NO. 5 1995 pp. 49-64 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS 1061-0421

49

1976). This has led the authors to conduct this study using a modification of the Nagashima (1970, 1977) research design to identify the attitudes of Gulf States firms toward aggregate images of products with “made in” labels from the six countries listed above. Previous investigation Considerable research has been done to examine the effect of country of origin on product evaluation. Reierson (1966, 1967) conducted one of the earliest studies addressing the topic with a survey of college students. Students were asked to indicate their general opinion of products from ten countries, three classes of products from ten countries, and a variety of specific products from four countries. He found that students ranked US products first and Japanese products last in every category. Other early studies by Schooler (1965, 1971) found perceptions to be significantly affected by the product’s country of origin as well as by sociodemographic characteristics of the consumers. The “made-in …” bias

Gaedeke (1973) extended the scope of studies concerning the “made in” concept to cover US consumers’ attitudes toward products from developing countries. He found that, in some instances, the information “made in …” caused substantial revision, upward and downward, of quality ratings for branded products where country of origin information was not previously known by the respondents. He concluded that, with regard to imports from developing countries, customers may have a much higher product quality image of such imports than have generally been assumed or acknowledged. In general, he found US products to be ranked first in all product categories. Nagashima (1970, 1977) surveyed both US and Japanese businesspeople’s attitudes toward foreign products, thus providing cross-cultural comparisons. These studies attacked the problem of defining product “quality” by identifying its components as price, value, design, style, service and engineering. He concluded that Americans unanimously favored products produced in the USA, while Japanese businessmen preferred US products only in the categories of automobiles and food.

Less influenced

Anderson and Engledow (1977), in a cross-cultural study of US and German consumers, found the Germans to be less influenced than those in the USA by advertising, branding, reputation and, presumably, country of origin. Bannister and Saunders (1978) employed a sample of UK consumers and found imported products to be highly regarded by the UK consumer. Wang and Lamb (1980) found that consumers’ attitudes toward foreign products were influenced by their perceptions of the economic and political environments in the country of origin. Other research has found the “made in” bias to exist in the business market as well (Cattin and Jolibert, 1979; Cattin et al., 1982; Chasin and Jaffe, 1979; Crawford and Lamb, 1981; Greer, 1971; Niffenegger, 1980; Niffenegger et al., 1980). Dornoff et al. (1974), and Festervand et al. (1985) extended Reierson’s (1966) studies by comparing the generalized attitudes toward product quality and specific comparisons by product category. In general, they noted that, while Japanese products were viewed as being of high quality and generally comparable with those in the USA, they were not considered superior to US products overall.

50

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 4 NO. 5 1995

Lillis and Narayana (1974) applied a modification of Nagashima’s design in the measurement of US and Japanese consumers’ attitudes toward the same foreign and national product images. They noted that attribute salience is a function of information exposure through advertising. Ettenson et al. (1988) employed conjoint analysis to assess the relative importance of each of a number of apparel product attributes in US consumers’ decision making. Contrary to other studies, the researchers noted that country of origin information may not have the effect suggested by earlier attitudinal studies. Schema-based evaluations

Most recent studies used other approaches or added other variables. Kochunny et al. (1993) developed a schema-based knowledge representation framework to examine the effects of country of origin on product evaluation. The results of their research revealed that consumers possess a country of origin schema and that country of origin schemes affected consumers’ retention of information about automobiles. Further work by Roth and Romero (1992) suggested a framework for matching the importance of product category dimensions with perceived image of the country of origin along the same dimensions. Hong and Wyer (1990) suggested that country of origin can affect interpretation of information about specific product attributes only when country of origin is conveyed some time before attribute descriptions. Sweeney (1993) noted that Americans, as well as western and eastern Europeans, are experiencing shifts in their own perceptions of US and other foreign products. Tse and Gorn (1993) investigated the salience of country of origin (Japan or Indonesia) and global brand name such as Sony. They found that the country of origin was equally salient and a more enduring factor in consumer product evaluation than was brand name. While each of the preceding efforts has contributed to an improved understanding of consumers’ perceptions of products, each suffers one or more limitation (e.g. student samples, limited number of countries, limited number of products, limited number of product features, lack of statistical tests, etc.). Moreover, most studies focussed only on US consumers (Anderson and Engledow, 1977; Cattin and Jolibert, 1979; Eroglu and Machleit, 1989; Ettenson et al. 1988; Kincaid, 1970; White, 1979), while some focussed on European consumers (Bannister and Saunders, 1978; Chasin and Jaffe, 1979; Niffenegger et al., 1980; Papadopoulos et al., 1990; Watson, 1976), and others on East Asian consumers (Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Chong, 1992; Lawrence et al., 1992). In addition, most studies attempted to identify the existence or the nonexistence of “stereotype nationalism” as they compared consumer attitudes with regard to products from their country relative to “imported” products.

Overseas buyers

Recently, a large number of studies associated with country of origin have investigated overseas buyers who have no association with countries whose product images are used in the study (Chong, 1992; Cordell, 1992; D’Astous and Ahmed, 1992; Khachaturian and Morganosky, 1990; Lawrence et al., 1992; Papadopoulous et al., 1990; Stepanovich, 1992). This trend reflects the importance of this market in developing a global product strategy. However, no studies have focussed on consumers from the Gulf States.


51

The study reported here adapted and extended Nagashima’s methodology to address the following research issues:

Semantic differential questionnaire

●

Do the general attitudes of Gulf State businesspeople toward product attributes differ across countries of origin and, if so, for which countries, and which attributes?

●

Do Gulf State businesspeople perceive categories of products differently depending on country of origin?

●

Do Gulf States consumers prefer to purchase specific products from various countries?

●

Do demographics of consumers affect their perceptions of product attributes?

Methodology The research instrument utilized the semantic differential questionnaire used and validated by Nagashima (Dickerson, 1982). The same 20 criteria (Table I) were measured on a seven-point scale valued from 1-7. The questionnaire was carefully translated into Arabic to insure that the meaning was consistent with that of the original. The resulting translation was validated through a pilot study[1]. The demographic data collected included categories for age, years of formal education, marital status, income and sex of respondent. The questionnaires were administered to a random sample of 2,643 businesspeople from the Gulf States. A 70% usable response rate was obtained with respondents from Saudi Arabia (n = 415), Kuwait (n = 295), Qatar (n = 210), United Arab Emirates (n = 310), Oman (n = 350), and Bahrain (n = 270). Of the 1,850 respondents, 1,287 were male and 563 female. The average age of the male respondents was 32.71 years, while the average age of the female respondents was 30.88 years. While only 7% of the respondents reported an average monthly income of less than $1,000, 41% reported an average monthly income ranging from $1,001 to $3,000, 37% reported an average monthly income ranging from $3,001 to $5,000, and 15% reported an average monthly income of more than $5,000.

The MANOVA techniques

In order to determine if the general attitudes toward the specific product feature ratings differ across countries, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used. MANOVA is a useful technique when there is more than one interval scaled criterion variable and one categorical predictor variable – the countries (Cooley and Lohnes, 1971). The technique, then, is utilized to determine if attitudes toward product attributes differ across countries. In order to test for significant differences between the countries for each of the criterion variables, a technique suggested by Morrison (1967) and demonstrated by Behrman and Perreault (1978) was utilized. The technique allows for simultaneous analysis of multi-group, multi-variable comparisons. It develops simultaneous confidence intervals for all comparisons. The Kruskal Wallace and Mann Whitney tests were used to determine whether significant differences in mean scores existed across demographic groups. In addition, various methods of data presentation will be utilized

52


better to understand the findings; descriptive statistics will be used for analysis of “priority purchases” of selected products.

General attitudes

Results General attitudes toward products “made in” various countries MANOVA was used to determine if the general attitudes toward selected quality features differ across countries. In this analysis, there is more than one criterion variable and we consider one categorical predictor variable – the countries. The multivariate analysis yielded an F approximation of 8.51, that was significant at the 0.0001 level. This indicates that there is a significant difference in the general attitude vector variable across the countries. Moreover, the multivariate coefficient of determination indicates that about 64.83% of the variation in the attitude is explained by the different countries. Specific differences among countries Given the significant overall relationship, an investigation of specific differences among countries and attitude components was performed. The results of this analysis via the simultaneous confidence interval approach are summarized in Table I.

Comparison of US and Japanese products

Relatively large differences in perception (attitude) were identified across countries at the 0.05 significance level. The numbers in the table reflect the mean attitude rating, while the symbols represent the countries where the differences occurred. For example, the attitude of the respondents toward products “made in” the USA and Japan differs on only four dimensions. Respondents thought that products “made in” the USA “were concerned more with young people”, “concentrated more on upper class people”, “were less reliable”, and “paid more attention to appearance than performance” when compared to products “made in” Japan. Table I also shows that US products are perceived differently from other products produced in countries other than Japan on most attributes (from German products on 14 attributes, from English products on 14 attributes, from French products on 17 attributes, from Italian products on 19 attributes and from Taiwanese products on 17 attributes). In other words, US products are perceived to be much closer to Japanese products than products from other countries used in the study. Data in the table show that Japanese products are perceived differently than products of countries other than US products.

European products

Considering only European products, the table shows that German and French products are perceived differently on only two attributes, while both are perceived differently from English or Italian products on most attributes. Examining the other extreme, Taiwanese products are perceived differently than other countries’ products on almost all attributes. The country most comparable to Taiwan is Italy, whose products differ from Taiwanese products on only eight attributes. Ranking countries according to their mean attribute ratings For a clearer perspective, the data in Table I are ranked by their means for each attribute and shown in Table II. Looking at data from this Table, several conclusions could be reached with regard to each country:


53

Japan

Country of origin Germany England

Attribute extremes

USA

France

Italy Taiwan

Inexpensive/expensive

4.34EFIT

4.81EFIT

5.60IT

5.08FIT

5.36IT

4.15T

2.24

Reasonably/ unreasonably priced

4.47GEFIT

3.79GEFIT

Reliable/unreliable

3.61JGFIT

3.42GIT

5.13IT

5.23FIT

5.05IT

3.85

2.21

3.03EFIT

3.68FIT

3.53IT

3.92T

Necessary/luxury items

3.61GEFIT

4.52

3.64GEFIT

4.01EIT

3.96FIT

5.04IT

3.97

3.56

Common/exclusive

4.57GFIT

3.49GFIT

4.46IT

4.55FIT

4.60IT

3.86

2.45

Light industrial/heavy industry products

5.13FIT

4.23GFIT

4.62FIT

4.66FIT

4.06IT

3.54

2.85

Good/bad workmanship

2.96IT

2.87EIT

2.97EIT

3.49IT

3.03IT

3.86T

5.07

Technically advanced/ backward

2.74EFIT

2.25EIT

3.13IT

3.68IT

3.08IT

3.89

4.44

Mass produced/ handmade

5.83GEF

5.68GEFI

4.72IT

5.01IT

5.03IT

3.99T

4.23

Worldwide/domestic distribution

2.32EI

2.26GEI

2.62ET

2.98FIT

2.52IT

3.34

3.36

Not inventive/inventive

5.04EIT

4.50EIT

4.72EIT

4.12FIT

4.74IT

4.16T

2.76

Pride/no pride of ownership

3.40FEGIT

3.70FEGIT

3.33IT

3.74IT

3.22IT

4.74T

5.33

Much/little advertising needed

4.54EFGIT

4.94FEGIT

4.58EIT

4.53IT

4.33IT

4.27

3.79

Unrecognizable/ recognizable brands

4.73EFGIT

5.20FEGIT

4.66EFIT

4.04FIT

4.59IT

3.79

3.32

Variety/no variety

2.86EFGI

Attention/no attention to performance

EFGIT

2.57

EIT

FIT

FIT

2.95

3.13

3.12

3.72

4.78

3.77JEFGIT 3.90IT

3.76EIT

3.92FIT

5.35IT

4.01T

4.27

Clever/not clever use of colors

3.24EFGIT

3.40FGIT

3.96EIT

3.66FIT

3.50IT

4.11

4.52

Young/old people

3.36JFGIT

3.55

FGIT

3.85

EIT

3.43

3.13

IT

3.34

4.30

More for men/more for women

3.29FGIT

3.80FGIT

3.45IT

3.79IT

5.10IT

3.65

4.05

Upper class/lower class

3.42JGFEIT 3.12FGEIT

3.06IT

3.52IT

2.77IT

3.65T

3.98

IT

Key: U G

= USA;

J

= Germany;

I

= Japan;

E

= England;

= Italy;

T

= Taiwan

F

= France;

Table I. Mean scores on rating variables derived via multivariate profile analysis

54

●

Gulf State businesspeople associated the label “Made in USA” with good workmanship, being technically advanced and highly inventive. They perceived it to enjoy outstanding marketing and advertising activities; US products were seen as having the most recognizable brands worldwide and a large choice of variety and colors. In addition, they perceived US products to be concerned more with men.

●

Respondents rated Japanese products almost equal to US products relative to technical and engineering aspects, the use of colors and JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 4 NO. 5 1995

Inexpensive Reasonably priced Reliable Necessary items Common items Light industry products Good workmanship Technically advanced Mass produced Worldwide distributed Not inventive (imitative) Pride of ownership

T T G T T T G J I J T F

I I J U J I U U T U E G

U J F J I F J F G F I U

J U U I G J F G E G J J

E F E E E G E E F E G E

F G I G U E I I J I F I

G E T F F U T T U T U T

Much advertising needed T Unrecognizable brand names T Variety J Attention to performance G Clever use of colors U Concerned more with young people F Concerned more for men U

I I U U J

E E G J F

F F F E E

U G E I G

G U I T I

J J T F T

I G

U I

E E

J J

G T

T F

G

J

U

E

I

T

Upper class Key: U = USA E = England

F J T

= Japan = Taiwan

G I

= Germany = Italy

F

Expensive Unreasonably priced Unreliable Luxury items Exclusive items Heavy industry products Poor workmanship Technically backward Handmade Domestic distribution Inventive Not much pride of ownership Needs little advertising Recognizable brands No variety Attention to appearance No clever use of colors Concerned with old people Concerned more for women Lower class

= France

Table II. Perceived ranking of product attributes by country of origin (means)

worldwide distribution features. They associate “Made in Japan” with high reliability and needing little advertising.

Exclusive and luxurious

●

Of the four European countries included in this survey, Germany emerged as clearly having the most favorable ratings on most attributes. Gulf States businesspeople see a definite prestige value in owning German products. They felt that German marketing efforts are directed more toward the upper class, the older generation and to men. Products “Made in Germany” are associated more with good workmanship and performance than with appearance. They perceived these products to be highly reliable and very expensive to the extent of being unreasonably priced.

●

Products “Made in France” are characterized as exclusive and luxurious. French products are considered to be the most expensive and mostly bought by those who are concerned with appearance and pride in their ownership. French products are perceived as appealing to women and the young, which may be related to their perceived concern with appearance.

●

Surprisingly, products “Made in England” are thought to be unreasonably priced. Respondents see English products as lacking inventiveness. The same respondents rated English products poorly on reliability, workmanship, and pride of ownership relative to other European products made in Germany or France.


55

Mean attitude rating

●

Gulf State businesspeople assigned the lowest ratings to Italian products relative to all other European products on almost all attributes. Clearly this reflects an element of mistrust for the functional qualities of Italian products. Businesspeople associate “Made in Italy” with poor workmanship, little variety and low reliability. They are thought to be technically backward and there was little pride of ownership resulting from their purchase. They are also thought to have unrecognizable brand names, be inexpensive yet reasonably priced, and to be associated more with the lower socioeconomic class.

●

Clearly the least favored of the seven countries in the study, Taiwan never rose above the sixth rank position with regard to performance attributes, reliability, workmanship, pride of ownership, clever use of colors, technical and engineering aspects, and being inventive. The weak ratings suggest low aesthetic appeal and problems of distribution and market penetration.

Preference for purchasing products from various countries Realizing that the mean attitude rating may not reveal a complete picture of the relative preference for purchasing products made in certain countries, respondents were asked to provide rankings of the countries from which to purchase, based on the assumption that each product has similar characteristics of quality, price, model, and other attributes and differed only in country of manufacture. The percentage of respondents and the relative preference for the purchase of products made in the various countries are shown in Table III. Far more respondents would purchase products first from the USA (40%) than from any other country, while 20% would purchase first from Japan. Products made in Taiwan show the poorest rankings, as respondents were willing to purchase them only as their fifth choice. Surprisingly, products made in England would be first choice for fewer consumers than products from any other European country. General attitudes toward specific products “made in” various countries Table IV shows the multivariate analysis of product attributes perceptions for the nine product categories. The purpose of this analysis was to

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh

USA (%)

Japan (%)

England (%)

Germany (%)

France (%)

Italy (%)

Taiwan (%)

40.6 23.5 18.9 5.3 2.4 – 9.3

22.3 21.7 32.7 8.4 0.6 10.2 0.8

0.1 12.3 17.1 30.3 10.6 17.4 1.5

12.6 11.7 27.0 19.7 14.6 12.5 –

6.2 26.3 2.9 20.2 29.9 11.9 8.6

5.6 6.5 – 12.6 10.1 27.1 19.7

– – – – 1.9 11.9 29.8

Note: Percentages may not total to 100 since some respondents made no preferences for those ranks

Table III. Ranking by percentage of preference for buying a product “made-in” a country (assuming similar characteristics of quality, price, model and other attributes) 56


USA Automobiles Household electronics Food products Textiles Cosmetics Medical products

Japan

England

Germany

France

Italy

Taiwan

2.39JGEI

2.72EFI

1.61G

2.76FI

1.03

1.01

–

1.94JFIT 2.62JEGFIT 1.86GT 2.26JEGIT

2.93EGFIT 1.33FIT 1.27GT 1.02EGFI

1.03GFIT 1.37FIT 1.75GT 1.26FT

2.02FIT 1.16IT 1.02FIT 1.01FT

1.02T 1.04 1.38 2.91IT

1.01T 1.03 1.79 1.03

1.04 1.02 1.07 1.01

2.88JFIT

1.38EGFIT

2.14FIT

2.54FIT

1.02

1.04

1.01

Notes: U = USA E = England

J T

= Japan = Taiwan

G I

= Germany = Italy

F

= France

Table IV. Mean rating of product categories from countries of origin (multiple comparison for significant differences)

determine how perceptions vary by product type as well as by country of origin. The multivariate F approximation of 87.53 indicates a significant (p < 0.0001) overall relationship between product category and country with respect to product attribute rating. The resulting multivariate R2 is 84.52, which indicates that about 85% of the variation is explained in the analysis. Differences among countries on product categories With the significant overall relationship established, an investigation of specific differences among countries and attitude components for the product was in order. The results of the analysis via the simultaneous confidence interval approach are summarized also in Table IV. An overall product attribute rating was obtained using a three-point scale of high (3), medium (2) and low (1). Automobile preferences

Using the 0.05 significance level, relatively large differences in perception (attitude) were identified across countries. The numbers in the Table reflect the mean attitude rating, while the symbols represent the countries whose product ratings were significantly different than the referent countries’ product rating. For example, the attitude of the respondents toward automobiles made in the USA differs from all other countries. Gulf State businesspeople prefer US-made automobiles relative to Italian, French or English automobiles; but prefer German and Japanese cars relative to USmade cars. Japanese cars are also perceived differently than English, French, or Italian cars. With regard to European automobiles, German cars are perceived differently from Italian and French cars, but not than English cars. Italian and French cars have lowest perception rankings respectively.

High rankings

Japanese-made household electronics enjoy very high rankings and are perceived differently than electronics made in all other countries. Respondents attached high ratings with regard to US food products and are perceived differently than food products made in other countries. High preference rankings are also attached to French and US cosmetic products (the two are not perceived differently), and US and German medical products (the two are not perceived differently).


57

Preference for purchasing specific products from various countries Anticipating that the mean attitude rating may not reveal a clear picture of the relative preference for purchasing specific products made in certain countries, we asked the businesspeople to identify their first, second, and third choice of a country from which to buy these products, assuming that a product from all countries have similar characteristics of quality, price, model, and other attributes. Consumer opinions about the priority of buying specific products made in various countries are shown in Table V. This table presents the questionnaire results in percentages. Clearly German and Japanese cars would be the first choice of the majority, while US cars are preferred as first choice by only 25.8% of the respondents. Japanese household electronics are preferred as first choice by 78.9%, while US food products are preferred as first choice by 55.2% of the respondents. With regard to textiles, English products are preferred as a second choice by 38.6% while there is no clear cut leader for first choice. Medical products made in the USA are preferred as first choice by 49.1% of the respondents, an German medical products are preferred by 26.7%. With regard to second and third choice, English-made medical products are clear favorites. Taiwanese and Italian products show very low ratings, with Italian products being the first choice only in the food, textile and cosmetic areas and for 5% or fewer of the respondents.

Gender, age, education and income

Demographic variate of product perceptions While perceptions, in general, were observed to vary across countries and product categories, it is also useful to know if there are any identifiable consumer segments that have more positive or negative perceptions than

Preference

USA

Japan

England

Germany

France

Italy

Taiwan

1 2 3

25.8 32.0 35.4

36.5 31.7 17.4

– 1.1 8.0

37.7 30.9 21.2

– 3.6 9.5

– – 6.0

– – –

Household 1 (electronics) 2 3

7.0 25.0 21.8

78.9 11.7 7.3

– 12.3 12.6

12.6 17.9 45.0

1.5 16.8 0.4

– 8.0 7.0

– – –

Food products

1 2 3

55.2 20.0 4.7

9.3 10.3 0.4

2.3 17.3 23.6

2.6 5.7 9.1

0.3 2.4 5.6

1.0 – 13.0

– – –

Textiles

1 2 3

8.6 7.8 8.8

17.8 9.6 8.3

10.5 38.6 7.4

– 1.5 8.7

18.8 13.9 8.1

1.0 9.0 30.0

– – –

Cosmetics

1 2 3

5.4 25.2 22.6

2.8 5.8 0.9

– 24.4 24.3

– 7.6 13.4

81.9 1.5 2.8

5.0 16.0 14.0

– – –

Medical products

1 2 3

49.1 26.7 17.2

– – 2.1

15.3 39.6 30.6

26.7 11.9 16.3

6.1 15.2 8.5

– – –

– – –

Automobiles

Note: Percentages may not total to 100 since some respondents made no preferences for those ranks

Table V. Percent first, second, and third preferences for buying a product “madein” which country by product type 58


others. Such information could be used in targeting marketing programs and strategies to specific consumers. Four demographic variates are used in this analysis: gender, age, education, and income. When general attitudes of different age groups (under 20, 20-30, 31-50, and over 50) toward products made in various countries were compared. The Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine if significant differences in mean scores existed across the age groups. The data show that significant differences exist with respect to products from Italy and Taiwan only. Taiwanese products

With respect to Taiwanese products, respondents show significant differences with regard to five attributes, namely, “Reliable/unreliable”, “Technically advanced/technically backward”, “Good workmanship/bad workmanship”, and “Inventive/not inventive”. With respect to Italian products, respondents show significant differences with respect to three attributes only, “Reliable/unreliable”, “Good workmanship/bad workmanship”, and “Inventive/not inventive”. In general, the two age categories that are older than 30 are found to have more negative attitudes toward Taiwanese and Italian products relative to other products on all of the attributes that were found to be significant. This research found gender and education to be marginal moderator variables with respect to about half of the perceptions of attributes of products made in some of the countries. The results are shown in Table VI. With respect to the three attributes of “Good workmanship”, “Inventive”, and “Attention to performance”, males gave a higher rating to German, US, Japanese and French products than did their female counterparts. On the other hand, females constantly gave higher rating to English products with respect to variables of “Good workmanship”, “Pride of ownership”, “Inventive”, and “Attention to performance”. Moreover, females consistently gave higher ratings to the two attributes of “Clever use of colors”, and “Attention to women” with regard to French products.

Effect of education

With respect to education and the two attributes of “Inventive” and “Attention to performance”, respondents in higher educational levels gave higher ratings to US, Japanese, French, English and German products than did respondents in lower educational categories. Respondents with higher education also gave German products higher ratings with respect to variables of “Reasonably priced” and “Reliable” than respondents in lower educational levels. Another obvious result with respect to education has to do to the attribute of “Recognizable brand names”, where respondents with lower educational levels perceived Italian and Taiwanese products to be more recognizable that did respondents with higher income levels. When general attitudes of different income groups toward the different “made in” products were analyzed, significant differences were found with respect to two attributes and two countries only. Respondents in higher income levels perceived English and German products to be “Inexpensive” and “Reasonably priced” when compared respondents with lower income levels. Summary and conclusion A direct comparison of this study’s findings with earlier works is not possible, as scores for each attitudinal dimension were not reported by the


59

Significance level Education (KruskalWallis test) Attributes

U

J G E F

I

T

U

Gender (MannWhitney test) J

Inexpensive/expensive

G E F I **

Reasonably priced/unreasonably

* *

Reliable/unreliable

*

T

** **

**

Necessary items/luxury Common/exclusive Light industry products/heavy Good workmanship/poor

*

* *

*

* * * *

*

** * * **

**

** ** * **

**

** ** ** **

*

*

Technically advanced/backward Handmade/mass produced Worldwide distributed/domestic Not inventive/inventive Pride of ownership/no pride

*

*

Much advertising needed/little Unrecognizable brand names/ recognizable

*

Variety/no variety

*

*

More attention to performance/ appearance

*

**

* * * *

Clever use of colors/not clever

* * *

*

*

*

** *

* * ** **

Young people/old people More for men/more for women

**

Upper class/lower class Notes: * Significant at the 0.05 level ** Significant at the 0.01 level U E

= USA = England

J T

= Japan = Taiwan

G I

= Germany = Italy

F

= France

Table VI. Differences of attitude toward foreign products by education and gender

majority of studies. Also, the differences in sample frames and study focus preclude direct comparison. Nevertheless, this research provides support for prior studies which found the existence of perceptual differences across cultures relative to various products made in specific countries. Multivariate analysis indicates that there is a significant difference in the general attitude of Gulf States businesspeople with regard to product attributes across the countries – the USA, Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy, and Taiwan. With the significant overall relationship, an investigation of specific differences among countries and attitude components resulted in relatively large differences in attitude across countries. On the other hand, US and Japanese products are perceived differently only with regard to four attributes (out of 20). Similarly, no significant differences were observed with regard to French and German products on most attributes. 60


The “Made in USA” designation is regarded as first choice by more than 40% of the Gulf States businesspeople, and first or second choice by more than 64%. “Made in Japan” is regarded as first or second choice by more than 44% of the respondents. This would also seem to reflect the aggressive marketing strategies followed by US and Japanese marketers in the area. With regard to European products, Germany leads the way as first choice. English products score poorly, as less than 1% of the businesspeople consider them to be their first choice. Prestige, performance and reliability

Results show that US and Japanese products are associated with being technically advanced, highly reliable and inventive. While German products are associated with prestige, performance and reliability, French products are associated with luxury and pride. On the other hand, English products are seen to be unreasonably priced and lagging behind German products with respect to most quality attributes such as workmanship, reliability, inventiveness and performance. Italian and Taiwanese products are rated poorly with respect to all attributes. Gulf States’ businessmen associated “Made in USA” with automobiles, electronics, food products and medical products. “Made in Japan” is associated with household electronics and automobiles. While English products are associated with textiles, medical products and cosmetics, German products are associated with automobiles and medical products. Of the different demographic variables, gender and level of education appear to be particularly significant causes of variance in attitudes toward specific countries of origin, while age and income levels have only occasional and marginal significance. The study demonstrates that it is important to recognize that, while a country’s product image may be generally negative, such as England in this study, certain product attributes are nonetheless evaluated favorably. Therefore, English firms, for example, desiring to sell to an international market such as the Gulf States may affect attitude change most efficiently by highlighting those positive product attributes. In other words, by increasing the relevance of attributes on which the products are favorably evaluated and decreasing the saliency of negative attributes, a product’s overall desirability may be increased.

Developing marketing strategies

For Taiwan to gain favorable consumer attitude in the Gulf States, its products and the marketing of those products must achieve world class standards in every respect. Even though Taiwanese products are associated with a cheap price, they are rated poorly on most if not all attributes that deal with product quality. New marketing strategies are required if these products are to survive in the global marketplace. This study provides an independent, customer-based evaluation of competitive strengths and weaknesses of the image of products made in various countries with regard to various product attributes. Results of the study may be used by business planners and strategists to propose actions to maintain and strengthen current attitudes or to enhance them. When firms located in these countries wish to develop marketing strategies, it would be appropriate to couple their plans with results obtained in this and other studies.


61

In addition, those Gulf States marketing practitioners and managers involved in the sales and distribution of products produced in various industrialized countries need to be aware of the tendency of the buyer to stereotype the quality of products from these countries. Effective steps must be taken by marketing managers to recognize the problem and overcome these biases. Periodic analysis

Obviously, the information generated in this study and other studies dealing with “made in” concepts has usefulness in measuring a nation’s competitive strengths and weaknesses. Since dependence on international trade is high, continuous measurement and monitoring are essential. This periodic analysis will represent a simple and effective measure for revealing the impact of attitude changes toward products made in certain countries on the general competitive strength of any given nation; and thus offers a basis for the development of individual marketing strategies. References and further reading Anderson, R. and Engledow, J. (1977), “A factor analytic comparison of US and German information seekers”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, Spring, pp. 185-96. Badri, M. (1992), “A framework for quality control for the UAE”, Journal of Al-Taawon AlSenai, No. 43. Badri, M. (1994), “Determinants of quality control management in UAE firms”, Arabian Journal of Administrative Science, Vol. 1 No. 2. Bannister, J.P. and Saunders, J.S. (1978), “UK consumers’ attitudes toward imports: the measurement of national stereotype image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 8, August, pp. 562-70. Behrman, D.N. and Perreault, W.D. (1978), “Isolating predictor variable effects in marketing research applications of discriminant analysis”, Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Southern Marketing Association, pp. 41-4. Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982), “Country of origin effects on product evaluation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Spring/Summer, pp. 89-99. Cattin, P. and Jolibert, A. (1979), “An American vs. French cross-cultural study of five ‘made in’ concepts”, Proceedings, The Educators Conference of the American Marketing Association, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 450-54. Cattin, P., Jolibert, A. and Lohnes, C. (1982), “Cross-cultural study of ‘made in’ concepts”, Journal of International Business Studies, Winter, pp. 131-41. Chasin, J.B. and Jaffe, E.D. (1979), “Industrial buyer attitudes toward goods made in eastern Europe”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 14, Summer, pp. 74-81. Chong, J.C. (1992), “A note on rivalry in East Asia – the case of sourcing”, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 99-103. Cooley, W.W. and Lohnes, P.R. (1971), Multivariate Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, 1971. Cordell, V.V. (1992), “Effects of consumer preferences for foreign sourced products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 251-69. Crawford, J.C. and Lamb, C.W. (1981), “Source preference for imported products”, Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Winter, pp. 28-33. D’Astous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1992), “Multi cue evaluation of ‘made in’ concepts: a conjoint analysis study in Belgium”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 9-29. Dickerson, K. (1982), “Imported versus US-produced apparel: consumers’ view and buying patterns”, Home Economics Research Journal, Vol. 10, March, pp. 241-52. Dornoff, R.J., Tankersley, C.B. and White, G.P. (1974), “Consumers’ perceptions of imports”, Akron Business and Economic Review, Summer, pp. 25-9. Eroglu, S. and Machleit, K. (1989), “Effects of individual and product specific variables on utilizing country of origin as a product quality cue”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 27-41. Ettenson, R., Wagner, J. and Gaeth, G. (1988), “Evaluating the effect of country of origin and the ‘made in the USA’ campaign: a conjoint approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, Spring, pp. 85-100.

62


Festervand, T.A., Lumpkin, J.R. and Lundstrom, W.J. (1985), “Consumers’ perceptions of imports: an update and extension”, Akron Business and Economic Review, 1985, pp. 31-6. Gaedeke, R. (1973), “Consumers’ attitudes toward products ‘made in’ developing countries”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49 No. 2, Summer, pp. 13-24. Greer, T.V. (1971), “British purchasing agents and the European Economic Community: some empirical evidence on internal industrial perceptions”, Journal of Purchasing, May, pp. 57-63. Hong, S.T. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1990), “Determinants of product evaluation: effects of the time interval between knowledge of a product’s country of origin and information about its specific attributes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 277-88. Jacoby, J., Olsen, J. and Haddock, R.(1971), “Price, brand name, and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 470-79. Khachaturian, J.L. and Morganosky, M.A. (1990), “Quality perceptions by country of origin”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 21-30. Kincaid, W. Jr (1970), “A study of the perception of selected brands as foreign or American and attitudes toward such brands”, unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Kochunny, C.M., Babakus, E., Berl, R. and Marks, W. (1993), “Schematic presentation of country image: its effects on product evaluation”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-25. Lawrence, C., Marr, N.E. and Prendergast, G.P. (1992), “Country of origin stereotyping: a case study in the New Zealand motor vehicle industry”, Asia Pacific International Journal of Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 37-51. Lee, H., Kim, C. and Miller, J. (1992), “The relative effects of price, warranty and country of origin on consumer product evaluations”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 55-80. Lillis, C.M. and Narayana, C.L. (1974), “Analysis of ‘made in’ product images – an exploratory study”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 5, Spring, pp. 119-27. Monroe, K. (1976), “The influence of price differences and brand familiarity on brand references”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, June, pp. 42-9. Morrison, D.F. (1967), Multivariate Statistical Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Nagashima, A. (1970), “A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, January, pp. 68-74. Nagashima, A. (1977), “A comparative ‘made in’ product image survey among Japanese businessmen”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 3, July, pp. 95-100. Niffenegger, P.B. (1980), “How imports rate in comparison with domestic products: a retailer survey”, Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Southern Marketing Association, pp. 369-73. Niffenegger, P.B., White, J. and Marmet, G. (1980), “How British retail managers view French and American products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 493-8. Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. and Beracs, J. (1990), “National stereotypes and product evaluations in a socialist country”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3247. Reierson, C. (1966), “Are foreign products seen as national stereotypes?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 42, Fall, pp. 33-40. Reierson, C. (1967), “Attitude change toward foreign products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. IV, November, pp. 385-7. Roth, M.S. and Romero, J.B. (1992), “Matching product category and country image perceptions: a framework for managing country of origin effects”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-97. Schooler, R.D. (1965), “Product bias in Central American common market”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2, November, pp. 394-7. Schooler, R.D. (1971), “Bias phenomena attendant to the marketing of foreign goods in the US”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 71-80. Stepanovich, P.L. (1992), “Image studies aren’t just for advertising”, Agri Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 24-6. Sweeney, T. (1993), “Becoming import status conscious”, Journal of European Business, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 8-10.


63

Tse, D.K. and Gorn, G.J. (1993), “An experiment on the salience of country of origin in the era of global brands”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-76. Wall, M., Liefeld, J. and Heslop, L. (1991), “Impact of country of origin cues on consumer judgements in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 105-13. Wang, C. and Lamb, C.W. (1980), “Foreign environmental factors influencing American consumers’ predispositions toward European products”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Fall, pp. 345-65. Watson, D.S. (1976), “Effect of national identity on multinational promotional strategy in Europe”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 4, October. White, P.D. (1979), “Attitudes of US purchasing managers toward industrial products manufactured in selected western European nations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Spring/Summer, pp. 81-90. White, P.D. and Cundiff, E.W. (1978), “Assessing the quality of industrial products”, Journal of Marketing, pp. 80-85.

■

Masood A. Badri is Associate Professor of Management and Assistant Deputy ViceChancellor for Academic Affairs at United Arab Emirates University, Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, PO Box 17555, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates. Donald L. Davis is Professor, and Donna F. Davis is Associate Professor, both at Management Information Systems Department, College of Business Administration, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA. 64
