Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of country stereotyping, bad press, and consumer ethnocentrism on the prices a country can command and be competitive.

A total of 767 consumers were given prices for products in 11 different categories, then told each product was made in China. They were then asked how much more (if anything) they would be willing to pay if the product was made in Germany, the USA, or India.

Price premiums were significant for all categories, and increased for those scoring higher on a Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CET Scale). However, completing the CET Scale before answering price questions caused respondents to have a lower price premium for US products. The size of the price premium was also positively correlated with the amount of exposure to negative news concerning Chinese products.

It is unknown how consumers would respond to categories not studied.

The cost of setting up government controls and industry oversight is expensive. However, the cost of negative news with product recalls is also expensive. Countries who avoid such negative news may be able to price their products 14 percent to 100 percent higher.

This study quantifies price premiums available to countries with a positive COO image. It also allows a manager to determine the feasibility of developing domestically produced products in specific categories, by identifying categories where consumers would pay a premium for domestically produced products.

Studies on optimal discount levels have sometimes yielded contradictory results, leaving practitioners with unclear direction. This paper proposes clarifying the optimum discount levels.

This study asked 453 consumers to choose their own optimal discount levels (from 0‐80 percent) for eight product categories across two distribution channels (physical store and online merchant). Then they were asked if the reason if they did not always select the deepest discount.

Only 13 percent selected the 80 percent discount level for each product and each channel, despite seeing the exact price they would pay at each level. In support of attribution theory, 88 percent of the consumers attributed at least one cause for the deepest discounts. Most frequently cited were concerns about quality problems, damaged goods, or stolen goods. Consumers also opted for lower discount levels from the online merchant than from the physical store. There was a wide divergence by product category, with consumers selecting smaller discounts on tires and cereal and the deepest discounts on shirts.

Given the divergence across product categories, it is unknown how consumers would respond to categories not studied.

This paper has revealed strong consumer perceptions about discount risks and the tradeoffs consumer make between risk and financial benefit across different product categories, both online and off – which can help marketing practitioners in setting discount levels.

By allowing consumers to select their own preferred discount levels, it is shown that most customers attribute some risk to them.

This study sets out to investigate the price premium brand‐loyal customers would be willing to pay over expectations in order to remain loyal.

A total of 385 consumers were asked price expectations and brand preferences for ten different products. Non‐brand‐loyal consumers were asked whether they would buy the cheapest brand or the cheapest brand with a name they recognized. Brand‐loyal consumers were asked to imagine they went to buy each product only to discover a higher price than expected. These consumers gave the maximum price they would pay to buy their preferred brands under two conditions – time pressured and not.

For non‐brand‐loyal consumers, just 14‐43 percent (depending on the product) would buy the cheapest offering, while 57‐86 percent would buy the cheapest brand whose name they recognized. Brand‐loyal consumers would pay a mean of 15.4 percent more than expected (not rushed) or 37.0 percent (rushed). Findings differed by product category with HDTVs garnering just an 8.8 percent price premium (not rushed) and 19.1 percent (rushed), while shirts/blouses showed the highest (21.9 percent not rushed and 53.2 percent rushed).

It is unknown how consumers would respond to categories not studied.

Recognizable brand names are able to attract more buyers than lower‐priced unknown brands, even among “bargain shoppers”. Consumers are willing to pay more to buy preferred brands, and even more in rushed situations.

This study puts a dollar value on consumers' desires to avoid search under time pressure.

San Jose State University’s (SJSU’s) Global Leadership Advancement Center (GLAC) was established in 2007 in response to a reported scarcity of global leaders in all sectors. Its mission is to advance, foster, and disseminate knowledge on global leadership and its development. The center created various programs in three focal areas: Knowledge Creation and Dissemination, Development and Training, and the Social Innovation Initiative. We briefly explain the assessment center, the GLLab (Global Leadership Laboratory), used to varying degrees in all development programs and courses. This chapter describes in detail three of GLAC’s innovative global leadership efforts and their theoretical foundations – an undergraduate global leadership course, the GLLab Exchange Program, and the Global Leadership Passport Program. All GLAC programs are based on research and best practices, which are referenced.