Search results

The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize and test a new concept named “Brand Origin RECall Accuracy” (BORECA) that assesses consumers’ ability to recall accurately the origins of brands they are aware of. It measures consumers’ brand awareness and brand origin (BO) awareness for a given product category.

Based on the accessibility–diagnosticity model and the limitations of the brand origin recognition accuracy concept, the authors propose and test the BORECA concept focusing on one product category (apparel) in an emerging country context, i.e. Tunisia (Mena). A sample of 374 respondents were surveyed on country-of-origin (COO)-category awareness, brand awareness, BO awareness and foreign vs local brand quality evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlation indices, MANOVA and linear regression analysis were used in data analysis.

Results show a substantial BORECA score, i.e. highly accurate awareness of the origins of the recalled brands, affected by respondents’ age, gender and education level. The average BORECA score for local brands is higher than for foreign brands. The local BORECA score seems to positively correlate to respondents’ evaluation of local brand quality and negatively to foreign (dominant COO category) brands.

Based on an aided recall task rather than simple recognition, BORECA provides a deeper assessment of brand awareness and BO awareness. The pressure induced by the task (knowledge test + retrieval effort) may cause anxiety bias that inhibits the recall of other brands and BOs.

Nationalistic and ethnocentric tendencies emerging in the findings point to some branding strategies for both local and foreign companies.

The paper provides a good indication of BO salience in an emerging economy. It seeks to explain the impact of the BORECA score for local brands on the perceived quality of both local and foreign brands.

The purpose of this paper is to comment on Magnusson et al.'s paper. Rather than entering into the COO (country of origin) relevance debate, the author observes the shift from manufacturing to brand origin and outline consequences for future COO research by taking into account linguistic aspects of brand names.

This paper documents the issue of brand origin recognition accuracy (BORA, a central theme in Magnusson et al.'s paper) and the progressive replacement of COO and COM (country of manufacture) by COB (country of brand). Linguistic cues lead to both incorrect and correct classification of brands in terms of their national origin, which the author subsumes in four ideal‐typical situations, by taking into account company intention to manipulate origin information or not. The author then outlines factors which cause and moderate incorrect versus correct classification, especially brand size, corporate vs product names, and linguistic devices.

A framework is developed crossing causes of incorrect versus correct classification with company strategic branding intents. Suggestions are provided for future research combining linguistic and non‐linguistic aspects of BORA.

Companies willing to build on the origin and favorability of their brand names should deploy a deliberate naming strategy that is expressed in the textual part, as well as in the visual part (i.e. brand name fonts, logo, packaging) and the accompanying marketing communications, especially advertising copy.

This paper takes distance from the raging debate on the relevance of COO research, and suggests to deepen the understanding of BORA. This is done by looking at causes and moderating variables of BORA, and taking into account linguistic aspects of strategic branding in the global market.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework integrating the types and levels of the determinants of brand country of origin (CO) recognition and to provide evidence on internet users’ brand CO recognition rates, using a sample of multi‐regional and global brands from a variety of product categories and countries.

The authors integrate “level‐1” consumer and brand characteristics and “level‐2” product category and country effects in a single framework. Data obtained through an original on‐line survey hosted by Yahoo provide the basis for the empirical analysis. Seven hypotheses are tested using a two‐level cross‐classified random‐effect model (HCM2).

It is found that: education is positively related with brand CO recognition; experience with brands is positively related with brand CO recognition; integration between the consumer and the country of a foreign brand is positively related with brand CO recognition; internet users’ classification performance is significantly better for domestic than for foreign brands; brand‐name congruence with true brand origin is positively related with brand CO recognition; brand equity explains brand CO recognition; and product categories with higher consumer involvement enhance brand CO recognition. Brand CO recognition performance by internet users is in line with classification performance rates reported in other studies dealing with well‐known and global brands.

Managers would benefit from considering product category and country aspects of their most valuable brands. Policy makers should encourage firms to promote a clear association between brands and countries (when these countries have a positive image) and discriminate between high and low involvement product categories.

The paper contributes to the brand CO awareness literature by integrating consumer and brand characteristics in a theoretical model, and identifying level‐2 product category features and CO effects previously disregarded in brand CO recognition frameworks. In addition, the study positively contrasts with previous research by providing empirical evidence on brand CO recognition from the largest set of global brands (109), countries of origin (19) and product categories (15) ever investigated.

The purpose of this paper is to present a rejoinder. The rejoinder is written in response to the commentaries provided by Saeed Samiee and Jean‐Claude Usunier on the authors’ original research piece: “‘What? I thought Samsung was Japanese’: accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters”.

The rejoinder is organized into three separate sections. The first section identifies areas of agreement between the authors, and Samiee and Usunier. The second section responds directly to the empirical and conceptual criticisms levied by Samiee and Usunier and clarifies the authors’ contribution. The rejoinder concludes by identifying areas of future research that may help further advance the field.

In addition to responding directly to the criticism of the original study, perhaps more importantly, the authors note several areas of common ground. First, there is agreement that future country‐of‐origin (COO) research designs must be careful to not artificially expose subjects to country cues that the consumer otherwise may not have considered. Second, in a globalizing world, brand origin perception appears to be more important than “made in” labels.

The authors do not consider the COO field outdated or irrelevant, but rather that it is a vibrant field of considerable interest to both practitioners and researchers. There is much still to be learned, and the authors hope the original research study and the ensuing debate have sparked fresh ideas and will lead to a continued effort in this interesting research field.

Brand origin (BO) has been suggested as an important determinant of brand evaluation and purchase intention. However, previous studies have indicated that consumers have limited knowledge and ability to recognize national origin of brands. The purpose of this paper is to assess brand origin recognition accuracy (BORA) and its relationships with brand evaluation and purchase intention in the Indonesian laptop market.

A convenient sample of 195 people in Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta participated in the survey. They were given a list of 18 laptop brands (four local and 14 foreign brands) and were asked to identify their actual national origins.

The study found that consumers are more likely to misidentify than correctly recognize a true BO. This limited ability also has contributed to the low BORA scores for both local and foreign brands. Brand evaluation was found to be positively correlated with purchase intention. However, the current study could only find partial supports for the relationship between BORA scores and brand evaluation as well as purchase intention.

Many Indonesian consumers are unaware of the laptops’ BO, whether it is foreign or local. Companies need to inform, educate, and/or remind consumers of their brand’s true origin and avoid being associated with a weaker country image. Furthermore, despite all four Indonesian laptop brand names seem to use non-Indonesian names, only one brand gains a slightly better brand evaluation from favorable misclassification. It may suggest that the effectiveness of foreign branding strategy in the Indonesian laptop market is debatable.

This is one of the few studies examining BORA in Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country and the largest laptop market in Southeast Asia.

The objective of this study is to offer a longitudinal examination of country image, consumers’ brand origin recognition accuracy, and how their effects on brand evaluations have evolved over the last decade.

The authors compare data gathered in 2020 against data gathered in 2008. Each data set consists of more than 500 American consumers evaluating approximately 12 different brands from three separate industries (i.e. auto, television, and fashion).

The findings indicate that country image can evolve over time and that its effect on brand evaluation persists even when inaccurate brand origin associations are made. The study offers meaningful insights for managers in understanding how brands’ country associations affect corresponding brand attitudes.

Significant research attention has been focused on the effects of country image. However, longitudinal analysis of the same research questions has been rare. This study offers a valuable comparison of how several important country-image related issues have evolved over time.

Extensive research has shown that country‐of‐origin (COO) information significantly affects product evaluations and buying behavior. Yet recently, a competing perspective has emerged suggesting that COO effects have been inflated in prior research and even that the COO concept has become irrelevant. The purpose of this paper is to reconcile these two competing perspectives by examining the effects of individual brand origin perceptions.

The conceptual framework is grounded in consumers’ learning. Empirically, the authors’ hypotheses are tested using hierarchical linear modeling on a sample of 4,047 brand evaluations by 544 consumers.

The results provide strong evidence that product country image of the consumer's perceived brand origin strongly affects brand attitudes, and this happens regardless of the perceptions’ objective accuracy. The authors also find evidence that educating consumers about brands’ true COO can contribute to changes in brand attitudes.

It is concluded that suggestions that COO has become an irrelevant construct in international marketing may be premature. The study offers meaningful insights for managers in understanding how brands’ country associations affect brand attitudes.

This study aims to reconcile tensions in the current COO literature and does so by demonstrating that although consumer knowledge of brand origin is often mis‐calibrated, consumers’ perceptions of brand origin still matter.

The country-of-origin effect (COO) has, as a research domain, suffered from several theoretical and methodological problems and tendencies including an incomplete conceptualization of its constituent components. The purpose of this study is to first problematize the concept in extant literature and to consequently propose a reconceptualization of the concept.

As part of lateral promulgation, the authors use theoretical and methodological ideas from other disciplines such as psychology, ethnography and geography to problematize the present conceptualization of COO in extant literature to reveal research possibilities relevant to, but underrepresented or absent in, COO research.

This study identifies several central theoretical and methodological problems and reveals that (1) COO is not necessarily linear and alternative modes of engagement with consumption need to be considered; (2) many of these problems can be addressed by alternative methodologies; and (3) COO operates at the level of symbolic orders that require a further engagement with the role of place in human experience.

The findings suggest that in future research, field experiments be considered to resolve some of the methodological artefacts that have hampered past research; qualitative methods be applied to uncover unexpected uses of place association beyond being mere quality proxies; and alternative areas of relevance, such as macro-level trade and exports from emerging economies, be entertained.

The study’s approach to problematizing and refining extant knowledge enable it to promulgate new knowledge and research directions for a research area that has historically suffered from a tendency to be self-referential.

This study aims to investigate how brand name (home-emerging-country vs foreign-developed-country brand name) applied by emerging market company in conjunction with revealing the actual country-of-brand-origin (COBO) (revealed vs non-revealed origin from developed vs emerging country) affects purchase intensions of durable goods.

An experimental conjoint analysis and multilevel linear models were applied.

Results demonstrate that brand name differentiates consumers’ purchase intentions. However, not every foreign-developed-country brand name may lead to the increase of purchase intentions. Revealing the actual emerging market’s COBO for brands with developed-country brand name may lead to lowering purchase intentions. Moreover, consumer ethnocentrism and materialism moderate the relationship between the brand type in terms of brand name and purchase intentions.

This study contributes to the international marketing literature by simultaneous examination of the impact of brand name type and revealing actual COBO on purchase intentions and the moderating effects of ethnocentrism and materialism, in emerging markets’ context. It also offers novel insights for brand managers regarding the influence of emerging markets’ companies branding strategies on consumer purchase intentions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how brand origin (BO) cues affect the consumer’s association of a new brand with BO learning and the subsequent effects on brand image (BO semiotics). An integrative theoretical framework is proposed that includes both processes.

The proposed model is based on analogical learning theory and triadic semiotic theory.

Two types of BO knowledge form BO meanings in consumer minds: country-related categories and exemplar brands, which have a classification and/or inferential role. The brand cues (indexes or icons) used by consumers to identify BO generate one or the other type of BO knowledge. Indexes trigger the classification function of country-related categories while icons trigger the inferential role of country-related categories and exemplar brands. BO knowledge informs the meaning transfer when consumers interpret the meaning of a new brand, leading to either a transfer of relations or a transfer of attributes to the new brand.

Marketers should monitor BO exemplar brands that consumers use as meaning sources and carefully select the signs used in their communications to evoke BO.

The proposed framework contrasts with dominant categorisation perspectives, re-establishing the dual role of categories and emphasising the relevance of brand cues in BO identification and BO exemplar brands in the BO meaning transfer process. A meaning-centred perspective is adopted to integrate BO identification and the related transfer mechanisms.