CitationDownload as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article Type: Editorial From: International Marketing Review, Volume 28, Issue 1.
Welcome to volume 28 of IMR. In this issue, we include five papers which cover a range of issues within the international marketing field.
Our first paper, by Leonidou et al., considers skepticism over the credibility of green advertising around the world. In their article, the authors provide a comprehensive assessment and trend analysis of green advertising practice by international firms over a 20-year period. Identifying 473 international green advertisements during the 1988-2007 period, the study offers a content analysis on five major axes: advertiser profile, targeting features, message aspects, copy characteristics, and situation points. Up to now, green advertising research has mainly focused on domestic rather than international advertisements and has largely examined issues in isolation. This study systematically evaluates international green advertisements over a long period using an integrated framework of analysis that is based on the extant literature. It also explores potential interaction effects between key dimensions describing these advertisements, revealing significant trends in all major areas examined.
In our second paper, Tasoluk et al. take a methodological stance and provide a brief theoretical overview of hierarchical linear and hierarchical generalized linear models. They comment that international marketing research often involves variables that belong to different units of analysis (like consumers residing in countries), with multi-level modeling being originally developed to deal with such hierarchical (nested) data. Analysis and interpretation of the results become more complex when the dependent variable is dichotomous, which is not seldom in international marketing research. In their paper, they demonstrate the application of hierarchical generalized linear models in the context of global brand management. The application illustrates the analysis and interpretation of the results when the dependent variable is dichotomous.
Our third paper, by Hatzithomas et al., also addresses the issue of international advertising, in this case examining humor and cultural values in the context of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, uncertainty avoidance and individualism/collectivism. A large two-country sample of magazine advertisements was content analyzed in light of Speck's humorous message taxonomy, emphasizing humor types and intentional relatedness. The results demonstrate the cultural diversity reflected in the types of humorous devices used. British advertisements incorporate not only sentimental but also disparaging humor types such as sentimental humor and full comedy, whereas Greek print ads emphasize cognitive humorous appeals, in an attempt to provide credible information to the uncertainty-avoiding Greek audience.
The findings highlight some key aspects of print advertising that can be extended in other homogenous cultures. In individualistic countries with low uncertainty avoidance, it would seem that consumers prefer humor-dominant messages. In collectivistic countries with high uncertainty aversion attitudes, however, humor can be used as a Trojan horse to convey the required information to the target group.
Hassan et al. consider Hofstede's fifth dimension and undertake a multi-country assessment of the long-term orientation (LTO) scale within the context of the culturally diverse European Union. They argue that many studies have addressed individualism/collectivism and that it is important to look beyond this dimension as a means of assessing cultural influence. Their large-scale replication study assessing the psychometric properties, measurement equivalence and generalizability of the LTO scale is an interesting addition to our knowledge in this field, providing the opportunity for researchers to make a more balanced and comprehensive judgment of the strengths and weaknesses in adopting the LTO scale. It responds to the call for more replication studies in marketing and management research to assist in avoiding the development of a proliferation of scales within the literature. The study points to the need for a better formulization of the LTO construct that is applicable across national boundaries. For international marketing managers, a key insight from this study is that LTO can be measured relatively parsimoniously.
Our last paper, by Kabadayi and Lerman, investigates the moderating effect of trusting beliefs about a store on country-of-origin (COO) effects. The authors suggest that three trusting beliefs (ability beliefs, benevolence beliefs and integrity beliefs) about a retail store moderate negative effects of COO on product evaluation and purchase intention. Choosing the toy industry as a context for study, the authors employ survey methodology to test their hypotheses. Their results show that while only benevolence and integrity beliefs about a store weaken the negative effect of COO on product evaluations, all three trusting beliefs lessen the negative impact of COO on consumers' purchase intentions. However, when manufacturer risk is high, only benevolence beliefs have a significant moderating effect. The findings suggest that manufacturers can reverse the negative cycle, or at least minimize their losses, if they choose those retailers that consumers have high trusting beliefs about as their channel members. Similarly, if they can signal that they are benevolent and honest stores, retailers can balance their customers' negative evaluations of products made in certain countries with negative image.
Finally, below you will find a list of the ten reviewers to whom we wish to pay particular tribute for their outstanding support to us and contribution to the work of IMR over the past three years, 2008-2010 inclusive. One of these, Susan Douglas, passed away on 3 January 2011 as this issue was in print. Susan was an IMR board member and former best paper winner who regularly reviewed papers for the journal, and we note her passing with extreme sadness. A fuller acknowledgement will appear in our next issue (Vol. 28 No 2), together with a paper coauthored by Susan Douglas and Samuel Craig.
(1) Mark Cleveland, The University of Western Ontario
(2) Susan Douglas, New York University (†)
(3) John Ford, Old Dominion University
(4) Dave Gilliland, Colorado State University
(5) David Griffith, Michigan State University
(6) Nicolas Papadopoulos, Carleton University
(7) Nina Reynolds, University of Bradford
(8) Matthew Robson, University of Leeds
(9) Chris Styles, The University of Sydney
(10) Katharina Zeugner-Roth, Vlerick Leuven Gent
We performed a similar exercise three years ago and promised to do so again in three years' time. Singling out a small number from the many who have reviewed for us is no mean task, and we should like to take this opportunity to extend our thanks to all the members of the Editorial Board and to those who have reviewed for us as and when we have asked them, for their continued, valuable assistance in this regard. The journal would be unable to function without you all. Thank you!