internationales markenmanagement · 2016. 2. 2. · country, e.g., riefler, jim 2012; winit et al.,...

Chair for

Marketing and Retailing Trier University Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

13. Übung im Master WS 2015/2016

Spezialisierung: Handel und Internationales Marketing-Management

Modul: Retail Management und Internationales Branding

INTERNATIONALES

MARKENMANAGEMENT

Trier University MARKETING & RETAILING Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

Slide 2

Exercise for this week

Read both papers and prepare answers to the questions below:

Swoboda/Hirschmann (2016, under review), “Does Being Perceived as Global

Pay Off? An Analysis of Leading Foreign and Domestic MNCs in India, Japan,

and the United States”.

Swoboda/Puchert/Morschett (2015), “Explaining the differing effects of corporate reputation across nations – A multilevel analysis”.

Questions:

Paper 1&2: What are the research questions?

Paper 1&2: What are the rationales for hypotheses developments?

Paper 1&2: What are the main results of the studies?

Paper 1&2: Are there other limitations and needs for further research than those

mentioned?

The answers will be discussed in class!

No additional points on top of the exam.


Slide 3

Objectives

Understand the structure of the paper

Be able to make critical objections concerning the paper’s structure

Be able to find the paper’s missing or/and wrong aspects

Constructive proposals according to points that are weakly worked out

Professur für

Marketing und Handel der Universität Trier Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

13.1 Does Being Perceived as Global Pay Off? An Analysis of Leading Foreign and Domestic MNCs in India, Japan, and the United States (Swoboda/Hirschmann, 2016 under review)

13.2 Explaining the differing effects of corporate reputation across nations – A multilevel analysis (Swoboda/ Puchert/Morschett, 2015)

13


Slide 5

MNCs communicate globalness to differentiate from competitors (Cioletti, LG 2013)

Consumers' perceived globalness is the extent to which an MNC is viewed as a

global player (Steenkamp et al., JIBS 2003) and provides access to MNCs' offered value.

However, esp. in economically strong countries, foreign MNCs compete with

domestic MNCs, e.g., increasingly emerging giants (e.g., Jullens, HBR 2013).

Scholars study effects of global brands intensively, eight studies on PBG

Affective vs. cognitive responses which translate PBG into purchase likelihood;

results restricted to product brands (two on corporations, Swoboda et al., JIM 2012; Alden et al., JIM 2013).

Corporate brands are strategically important as they are CEO task and have importance

for product brands (Lafley, HBR 2009; Mascarenhas JIM, 2009; Berens et al., JM 2005).

Three studies compare foreign vs. local-only brands and two foreign global vs.

local global product brands (in one, mostly emerging country, e.g., Riefler, JIM 2012; Winit et al., IMR 2014)

Scant research on corporate brands in different environments.

MNCs' origin and consumer ethnocentrism as context factors (e.g., Zhou et al., JAMS

2010; Shimp/Sharma, JMR 1987).

Introduction – Conceptual framework – Method – Results – Implications – Limitations and further research

Focus and research gaps


Slide 6

RQ 1: What is the underlying pathway through which MNCs transform PBG

into loyalty in different environments?

RQ 2: How does MNC origin (foreign vs. domestic) influence the (1) total

effect of PBG and (2) the value mechanism, and how does consumer

ethnocentrism interact with PBG?

Contribution

Extending knowledge on MNCs' PBG effects and enhancing explanations for how

PBG creates value in cultivating customers for MNCs (by responding to calls Swoboda et al.,

JIM 2012; Özsomer, JIM 2012).

Accounting for increasing competition between foreign vs. domestic MNCs by

treating PBG of foreign and domestic MNCs as an independent predictor;

providing insights into value pathways, ethnocentric tendencies, and three-way

interaction of origin and ethnocentrism.

Developing the applicability of accessibility-diagnosticity theory (Feldman/Lynch, JAP 1988)

in global brand research; studying economically important, but different countries.

Research questions and contribution

Introduction – Conceptual framework – Method – Results – Implications – Limitations and further research Chart 6


Slide 7

PBG (Steenkamp et al., JIBS 2003)

Functional / psychological value (Sweeney and Soutar, JR 2001; Alden et al., JIM 2013)

Functional: quality, innov., price-quality

Psychological: emotional, social

Loyalty (Oliver, JM 1999; Morgeson et al., JAMS 2011)

Core predictor of consumer spending


Conceptual framework

Loyalty

(LOY)

Functional

value (FV)

Psycho-logical

value (PV)

PBG

Moderator: MNC origin (COO)

Moderator: Consumer ethnocentrism (CE)

– Theory –

Accessibility-diagnosticity theory (Feldman/Lynch, JAP 1988; Lynch et al., JCR 1988)

Accessibility: ease of retrieving specific information from memory

Diagnocticity: extent to which inferences based on the information are

adequate to make a decision

Probability that PBG associations of an MNC can be used as information to

evaluate consumers' intentional loyalty is a function of PBG's accessibility and

diagnosticity


Slide 8

PBG only directly affects

intentional behavior under certain

conditions

PBG of MNCs may not be

diagnostic unless consumers link

it to FV and PV of a corporate

brand (Lynch et al., JCR 1988; Swoboda et al.,

JIM 2012), PBG reinforces

FV because of cognitive percep-

tions of quality, value for money, or

credibility (Holt et al., HBR 2004;

Schuiling/Kapferer, JIM 2004; Keller 1998)

PV because of affective percep-

tions of emotional experience,

prestige, esteem (Alden et al., JM 1999;

Ger, CMR 1999)

H1a: The PBG of MNCs positively affects con-

sumer loyalty through functional value.

H1b: The PBG of MNCs positively affects con-

sumer loyalty through psychological

value.

Loyalty

(LOY)

Functional

value (FV)

Psycho-logical

value (PV)

PBG




Results are stable (rival model tests).

Hypotheses development:

Main effect of PBG


Slide 9

H2: The total effect of PBG on consumer

loyalty is higher for foreign than for

domestic MNCs.

H3a: When MNCs are foreign, PBG contri-

butes to consumer loyalty equally

through FV and PV.

H3b: When MNCs are domestic, PBG contri-

butes to consumer loyalty more through

PV than through FV.


Moderator MNC origin

Loyalty

(LOY)

Functional

value (FV)

Psycho-logical

value (PV)

PBG




PBG's diagnosticity differs

depending on MNC origin, that

helps to evaluate a MNC

Foreign MNC origin:

Diagnosticity multiplier; foreignness

exciting, perceived as global

(Eckhardt, JIM 2005; Batra et al., JCP 2000)

FV/PV equally activated

Domestic MNC origin:

Perceived as local, close to

consumers, culturally embedded

(Ger, CMJ 1999; Özsomer, JIM 2012); origin

info enhances specific feelings or

even pride

PV predominantly activated

Assumed equally across cultures

and nations (e.g., Alden et al., JM 1999)


Slide 10

H4: The total effect of PBG on consumer

loyalty is stronger for consumers with

lower CE than for consumers with higher

CE.

H5: For consumers with (a) lower and

(b) higher ethnocentrism, PBG contributes

to consumer loyalty more through PV than

through FV.


Moderator consumer ethnocentrism

Loyalty

(LOY)

Functional

value (FV)

Psycho-logical

value (PV)

PBG




Consumers' ethnocentrism affects

the value-creation process (Shimp/

Sharma, JMR 1987; Steenkamp et al., JIBS 2003)

Less ethnocentric consumers are

more world-minded, cosmopolitan (Shimp/Sharma, JMR 1987)

More ethnocentric consumers

believe buying foreign-made hurts

domestic economy; disregard

quality and feel animosity

Prefer belief-consistent infor-

mation (e.g., Zhang and Khare 2009)

For both PV pathway is stronger

because beliefs influence

emotional attachment more

strongly than perceptions of

functional aspects


Slide 11

Research methodology (1/2)

Sample selection

Industry: Chemical/pharmaceutical, global industry (foreign/ domestic MNCs) in

which consumers are sensitive to corporate and less to product brands

Countries: India, Japan, U.S. (1) host domestic and western MNCs, (2) differ

concerning economic strength and culture (out of Top 10 economies)

MNCs: Leading MNCs (secondary data); thereof choice of six strongest compe-

titors (manager expertise); Top 2 foreign (German speaking) and Top 2 domestic

MNCs (local); remaining two used for alternative models

Sample characteristics

Panel data (commercial agency 55% participation rate)

Quota sampling (gender, age), screening criteria (urban, income, education)


Quota sample (in %)

India (N = 704) Japan (N = 794) USA (N = 662)

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Age 18-25 15.9 10.0 25.9 5.9 4.4 10.3 7.3 7.7 14.9

Age 26-35 13.1 15.8 28.8 10.3 8.4 18.7 11.3 10.8 22.0

Age 36-45 12.1 9.2 21.4 12.5 11.8 24.3 13.7 12.2 25.9

Age 46-55 7.9 7.2 15.1 12.5 9.7 22.3 10.8 10.4 21.1

Age 56-65 4.3 4.5 8.8 13.0 11.4 24.4 9.1 6.9 16.0

Total 53.3 46.7 100.0 54.3 45.7 100.0 52.1 47.9 100.0


Slide 12

Research methodology (2/2)

Measurement and method

Established and pre-tested scales (5-point Likert-type)

PBG (three items, Steenkamp et al., JIBS 2003)

Two functional and two psychological value dimensions (four items each, adapted from

Sweeney/Soutar, JR 2001; Swoboda et al., JIM 2012; Alden et al., JIM 2013)

Conative loyalty (three items, Oliver, JM 1999; 2015)

Objective MNCs origin (foreign vs. domestic, Swoboda et al., JIM 2012)

Ethnocentrism (four items, two group median split, adapted from Shimp et al., JMR 1987; Zhou et al., JAMS 2010)

Controls: Gender, age, familiarity with the MNC

Tests: Outlier diagnostic, normality, reliability, validity, discriminant validity, measu-

rement equivalence, CMV (marker variable: occupation Rindfleisch et al. JCR 2010), endo-

geneity (instrument variable: perceived communication, Steenkamp et al., JIBS 2003; Cleveland/

Laroche JBR 2007), rival models (different MNCs, China and Italy as further countries)

Method: SEM (Mplus), MLM, mediation analysis, moderation analysis by (a) multi-

group comparison, (b) latent interaction, three-way interaction (residual centering approach;

Little et al., SEM 2006)



Slide 13

Results:

General model

India Japan U.S.

Total sample Rival model

(direct path)


(direct path)


(direct path)

β b p b p β b p b p β b p b p

Direct paths

PBG → FV 0.69 0.59 *** 0.59 *** 0.31 0.12 *** 0.13 *** 0.49 0.45 *** 0.46 ***

PBG → PV 0.69 0.58 *** 0.58 *** 0.31 0.16 *** 0.16 *** 0.51 0.45 *** 0.45 ***

FV → LOY 0.51 0.49 *** 0.53 *** 0.43 0.50 *** 0.52 *** 0.27 0.35 *** 0.37 ***

PV → LOY 0.54 0.53 *** 0.56 *** 0.66 0.61 *** 0.62 *** 0.47 0.65 *** 0.69 ***

Gender -0.01 -0.02 ns -0.02 ns 0.04 0.04 ns 0.04 ns -0.03 -0.06 ns -0.07 ns

Age 0.03 0.02 ns 0.02 ns 0.03 0.01 ns 0.01 ns 0.01 0.01 ns 0.01 ns

Familiarity 0.00 0.00 ns 0.00 ns 0.00 0.00 ns 0.00 ns 0.06 0.03 * 0.03 *

PBG→LOY (direct) - - -0.07 ns - - -0.02 ns - - -0.08 ns

Total effect

PBG→LOY 0.73 0.60 *** 0.34 0.16 *** 0.38 0.46 ***

Indirect effects

PBG→FV→LOY H1a 0.35 0.29 *** 0.13 0.06 *** 0.13 0.16 ***

PBG→PV→LOY H1b 0.37 0.31 *** 0.20 0.10 *** 0.24 0.29 ***

* p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; ns = Not significant.

Model fits:

India: CFI 0.96; TLI 0.95; RMSEA 0.06; SRMR 0.10; χ²(125) = 488.37; SCF = 1.22; rival model with direct paths: Wald test of parameter constraint d1 = 3.52(1), p>0.05;

Japan: CFI 0.92; TLI 0.90; RMSEA 0.08; SRMR 0.10; χ²(125) = 718.67; SCF = 1.23; rival model with direct paths: Wald test of parameter constraint d1 = 3.17(1), p>0.05;

U.S.: CFI 0.91; TLI 0.89; RMSEA 0.10; SRMR 0.11; χ²(125) = 961.71; SCF = 1.10; rival model with direct paths: Wald test of parameter constraint d1 = 2.39(1), p>0.05.

Note: SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM; β = standardized coefficients; b = unstandardized coefficients.


Results are stable for (1) China, Italy, and for (2) different foreign MNCs (non-German speaking).


Slide 14

Results:

MNC origin

India Japan U.S.

Foreign Domestic Foreign vs.

domestica Foreign Domestic

Foreign vs.

domestica Foreign Domestic

Foreign vs.

domestica

β b p β b p b p β b p β b p b p β b p β b p b p

Direct paths

PBG → FV .74 .60 *** .33 .25 *** .39 .25 *** .27 .13 *** .48 .45 *** .49 .45 ***

PBG → PV .68 .54 *** .64 .53 *** .34 .27 *** .33 .23 *** .55 .49 *** .48 .42 ***

FV → LOY .52 .52 *** .49 .48 *** .57 .64 *** .37 .51 *** .48 .65 *** .17 .21 ***

PV → LOY .53 .53 *** .61 .54 *** .56 .53 *** .65 .62 *** .25 .35 *** .59 .80 ***

Gender .00 .00 ns -.02 -.04 ns .00 .00 ns .06 .05 ns -.09 -.21 * .03 .08 ns

Age .00 .00 ns .06 .04 * .02 .01 ns .04 .01 ns .06 .05 ns -.03 -.03 ns

Familiarity .00 .00 ns .00 .00 ns .00 .00 ns .03 .00 ns .04 .02 ns .09 .06 **

Total effect

PBG→LOY H2 .75 .60 *** .56 .41 *** .19*** .42 .31 *** .32 .21 *** .10*** .37 .46 *** .37 .44 *** .02ns

Foreignb Domesticb Foreignb Domesticb Foreignb

Indirect effects H3 b p b p b p b p b p b p

PBG→FV→LOY .39 .31 *** .16 .12 *** .02ns .22 .16 *** .10 .07 *** .02ns .23 .29 *** .08 .09 *** .12***

PBG→PV→LOY .36 .29 *** .40 .29 *** -.17*** .19 .14 *** .21 .14 *** -.07*** .13 .17 *** .28 .34 *** -.25***


Model fits:

India: CFI .95; TLI .94; RMSEA .07; SRMR .09; χ²(260) = 659.83; SCF = 1.20;

Japan: CFI .91; TLI .90; RMSEA .07; SRMR .09; χ²(260) = 881.09; SCF = 1.24;

U.S.: CFI .91; TLI .89; RMSEA .10; SRMR .11; χ²(260) = 1120.05; SCF = 1.10.

Note: a Difference between countries; b Difference within countries; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM; β = standardized coefficients; b = unstandardized coefficients.


Domesticb



Slide 15

Results:

Consumer ethnocentrism

India Japan U.S.

Lower Higher Lower vs.

highera Lower Higher

Lower vs.

highera Lower Higher

Lower vs.

highera

β b p β b p b p β b p β b p b p β b p β b p b p

Direct paths

PBG → FV .75 .65 *** .68 .56 *** .37 .15 *** .20 .07 ** .52 .51 *** .48 .42 ***

PBG → PV .75 .63 *** .67 .54 *** .37 .21 *** .21 .10 *** .55 .51 *** .46 .39 ***

FV → LOY .52 .52 *** .48 .46 *** .44 .53 *** .39 .49 *** .35 .42 *** .14 .21 ***

PV → LOY .49 .50 *** .58 .57 *** .66 .60 *** .62 .61 *** .42 .54 *** .57 .84 ***

Gender -.01 -.03 ns .00 .00 ns .00 .00 ns .06 .05 ns .00 .01 ns -.08 -.17 *

Age .04 .03 ns .02 .01 ns .05 .02 ns .00 .00 ns .01 .01 ns .00 .00 ns

Familiarity .02 .01 ns .00 .00 ns .00 .00 ns .02 .00 ns .00 .00 ns .08 .04 *

Total effect

PBG→LOY H4 .76 .66 *** .72 .57 *** .09*** .42 .21 *** .21 .10 *** .11*** .41 .49 *** .34 .42 *** .07***

Lowerb Higherb Lowerb Higherb

Indirect effects H5 b p b p b p b p b p b p

PBG→FV→LOY .39 .34 *** .33 .26 *** .02ns .16 .08 *** .08 .03 *** .18 .21 *** .07 .08 ***

PBG→PV→LOY .37 .32 *** .39 .31 *** -.05** .25 .12 *** .13 .06 *** -.04** -.03** .23 .28 *** .27 .33 *** -.07*** -.25***


Model fits:

India: CFI .96; TLI .95; RMSEA .06; SRMR .08; χ²(260) = 603.27; SCF = 1.19;

Japan: CFI .92; TLI .91; RMSEA .07; SRMR .09; χ²(260) = 826.98; SCF = 1.24;

U.S.: CFI .91; TLI .90; RMSEA .09; SRMR .10; χ²(260) = 1060.99; SCF = 1.11.

Note: a Difference between groups; b Difference within groups; SCF = Scaling correction factor for MLM; β = standardized coefficients; b = unstandardized coefficients.


Higherb Lowerb



Slide 16

Theoretical

RQ1: main effect

Consumers link MNCs' PBG with FV/PV to render PBG diagnostic (indirect effects

enhance extant studies on corporate brands, e.g., Swoboda et al., JIM 2012; Alden et al., JIM 2013)

Leading MNCs may use PBG across countries to influence value perceptions

which are attributed to the whole corporation

RQ2: role of MNC origin

Total effect of PBG (MNCs’ origin as a diagnosticity multiplier)

Foreign MNCs benefit more from PBG than domestic MNCs do (scholars found benefits of

PBG for foreign vs. local-only brands, Zhou et al., JAMS 2010; Swoboda et al., JIM 2012, but less for foreign vs. domestic

global product/service brands, Riefler, IJRM 2012; Winit et al., IMR 2014)

Differences in the total effect between foreign and domestic MNCs are

significant in emerging countries like India (or China),

insignificant in developed, western countries like the U.S. (or Italy),

significant in Japan (not only economic development explains total effect but maybe also national culture

differences/distances)


Implications (1/2)


Slide 17

Indirect effects (value mechanisms)

Domestic MNCs attract dominantly through PV (in India, Japan, and U.S.)

Foreign MNCs attract

equally through FV and PV in India and Japan; benefits from adaptation or brand-building

more through FV in the U.S.; maybe unable to form emotional ties with domestic

consumers

RQ2: role of CE Multi-group models:

Stronger total effect for less (vs. more) ethnocentric consumers (theoretically consistent;

ethnocentrism important role in developed/emerging countries and across cultures)

PV pathway predominant in the U.S. and Japan, while in India, both pathways similarly

important (e.g., different belief-accessibility mechanisms toward MNCs)

Latent interaction models:

Increasing ethnocentrism reduces the PBG effects in India and Japan, but not in the U.S.

Managerial

PBG is transformable into loyalty intentions via FV/PV, particularly for less

ethnocentric consumers, while country differences exist Introduction – Conceptual framework – Method – Results – Implications – Limitations and further research Chart 17

Implications (2/2)


Slide 18

Sample

Focus on four MNCs from one industry in three countries

Further analysis of foreign/domestic MNCs vs. local-only firms (Schuiling/Kapferer, JIM

2004); in further industries (Strizhakova/Coulter, JIM 2015) and in more countries

Inclusion of country level predictors (e.g., Swoboda et al., JAMS 2015)

Method

Alternative measurements of value (e.g., hedonistic vs. utilitarian) and loyalty

Integration of culture

Framework

Consideration of more fine-grained ethnocentric tendencies, e.g., ethnocentric vs.

geocentric vs. combined identity (Steenkamp/de Jong, JM 2010)

Limitations and further research


Professur für

Marketing und Handel der Universität Trier Prof. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

13.1 Does Being Perceived as Global Pay Off? An Analysis of Leading Foreign and Domestic MNCs in India, Japan, and the United States (Swoboda/Hirschmann, 2016 under review)

13.2 Explaining the differing effects of corporate reputation across nations – A multilevel analysis (Swoboda/ Puchert/Morschett, 2015)

13


Slide 20

Excursus:

Multi-group and multilevel models

Multi-group Multilevel

Image Trust

Image Trust

Group 1

Group 2

Group …

.309

.189

Comparison of 2 or more groups

Dividing into groups using categorical

variables, e.g., age, gender, low/high

uncertainty avoidance, …

Results for each group which are

compared with each other

Image Trust

UAI

1 level

Consumer level

2 level

Country level

Nested data structure, e.g., consumers

nested in countries, students nested in

schools

Minimum clusters on the second level:

25

One result for the main effect and one

result for moderatoring effect (slope

and intercept)

Percentage of (country) differences

which can be explained by the

moderator


Slide 21

Focus and gap

Practical: Multinational corporations increasingly control their reputation.

Theoretical: Scholars intensively analyze corporate reputation (CR).

Research shows positive effects on important downstream variables (e.g., trust, word of

mouth or loyalty Caruana & Ewing, JBR 2009; Walsh et al., JBR 2009b).

However, research has paid little attention to institutional moderators of MNC

reputation effects across nations (e.g., Steenkamp & Geysken, JM 2006; Walsh et al., JIM 2014).

Studies with national focus Studies with international focus

Co

nsu

mer1

beh

avio

r

- Direct effects

on loyalty

- Bartikowski & Walsh, JBR 2011

- Caruana & Ewing , JBR 2010

- Sarstedt et al., JWB 2013

- Swoboda et al., JR 2013

- Walsh et al., BJM 2009a

- Walsh & Beatty, JAMS 2007

Culture as moderator

- Bartikowski et al., JBR 2011

- Walsh et al., JBR 2009b

Further moderators

- This study

- Further

(indirect)

effects/

decisions

- Andreassen & Lindestad, JSR 1998

- Berens et al., JM 2005

- Brodie et al., JBR 2009

- Brown & Dacin, JM 1997

- Johnson & Grayson, JBR 2005

- Lai et al., JBR 2005

- Veloutsou & Moutinho, JBR 2009

- Yoon & Guffrey, JBR 1993

Culture as moderator

- Falkenreck & Wagner, CRR 2010

- Jin et al., IMR 2008

- Walsh & Bartikowski, JBR 2013

1 Only studies with focus on consumer behavior are shown.

Introduction – Conceptualization and hypotheses development – Empirical study – Results – Implications – Limitations/Further Research


Slide 22

Research objectives and contribution

Research objectives

1. Is the mechanism of how CR affects loyalty across countries stable (comparison

of the effect across countries)?

2.Which of the various institutional determinants influence the reputation-loyalty

relationship most strongly (moderating role of selected country specific variables)?

Contribution

International CR management is advantageous for MNCs but has rarely been

examined (e.g., Madden et al., JIM 2012).

Broader view on institutional moderators across a significant amount of countries (call by Berry et al., JIBS 2010)

Methodologically: multi-level approach to disentangle individual-level and

country-level variance

Practically: Learning what may cause differences in the reputation-target group

outcome relationship across countries (to overcome simply country specific evaluations).



Slide 23

Conceptual framework

Schema and Signaling theory: Corporate reputation (CR) are consumer-

based corporate associations concerning a MNC (Walsh & Beatty, JAMS 2007) and

loyalty (Loy) is the intention and readiness to repurchase or to

recommend a company (Oliver, JoM 1999).

Institutional theory: External, country specific variables (Berry et al., JIBS 2010)

Perceived corporate

reputation (CR) Loyalty (Loy)

Demographic

Individual level

Country level

Connectedness

Economic

Culture

Knowledge

Finance

sCR iLoy

Politic

iLoy

sCR



Slide 24

Country differences

Source: Berry et al., JIBS 2010.

Culture

Differences in attitudes

toward authority, trust,

individuality, and importance

of work and family.

Embeddedness

Autonomy (intellectual)

Autonomy (affective)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Mastery

Harmony

Demographic Differences in democratic characteristics.

Population above 65

Life expectancy

Household size

Economic Differences in economic

development.

Income

Household consumption

International trade (export and import)

Global

Connectedness

Differences in tourism and

internet.

Internet user

Mobile phones

International tourism

Knowledge Differences in literacy rates

and scientific production.

Literacy rate

Tertiary school enrollment

Scientific articles

Politic Differences in political

stability, democracy, and

trade bloc membership.

Policy-making uncertainty

Democratic character

Corruption



Slide 25

Hypotheses development (I)

Strong CR is an important signal that

encourages the benefits of an MNC.

CR associations are learned over time

through information retrieval or

repeated exposure and are known to

determine customer loyalty (Swoboda et al.,

JR 2013)

Studies support this rational in a

national context (e.g., Caruana & Ewing, JBR 2010;

Sarstedt et al., 2013 JWB) and in an

international context (e.g., Bartikowski et al., JBR

2010, Walsh et al., JBR 2009).

H1. The CR of an MNC has a positive effect

on consumer loyalty across countries.

Culture

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

sCR

Demographic

Economic

Connectedness

Knowledge

Politic iLoy



Slide 26

Hypotheses development (II)

Behavior in autonomous societies is

based on individual understanding of

situations vs. Behavior is addicted to

the group(Schwartz 1999).

Individuals in hierarchy societies are

sensitive to information that refers to

and is received by authorities vs.

Authorities are not accepted (Falkenreck &

Wagner 2010, CRR)

Individuals’ assertiveness and risk

taking is supported vs. CR as signal for

responsible behavior (e.g., Schwartz 1999)

Culture

Embeddedness

Autonomy (intellectual)

Autonomy (affective)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Mastery

Harmony

Long-term orientation

(LTO)

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

iLoy

sCR

H2. National cultural differences moderate

the relationship between CR and loyalty;

that is, the relationship is stronger in

countries with (a) high embeddedness (low

intellectual/affective autonomy), (b) high

hierarchy (low egalitarianism), (c) high

harmony (low mastery) Introduction – Conceptualization and hypotheses development – Empirical study – Results – Implications – Limitations/Further Research


Slide 27

Hypotheses development (III)

Older consumers search less for

information, and have a smaller set of

relevant brands (e.g., Cole & Balasubramanian, JCR

1993; Lambert-Pandraud & Lauten, JM 2010).

Higher psychological cost of information

search and a lower affiliation with new

information (e.g., Burke & Light, PB 1981; Cattin &

Punj, ACR 1983) lead to a reliance on long-

term learned information and unique

preferences for brands.

Individuals with along life expectancy

are influenced by their longevity which

may influence their openness for CR

cues.

Large households have higher

household consumption and thus

smaller budgets (Kalyanam & Putler, 1997 MS).

H3. National demographic differences

moderate the relationship between CR and

loyalty; that is, the relationship is stronger

in countries with (a) high share of an old

population, (b) high life expectancy, and (c)

smaller households.

Demographic

Population above 65

Life expectancy

Household size

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

iLoy

sCR



Slide 28

Hypotheses development (IV)

Income levels and consumption

expenditures are related to the

affordability of reputable brands.

Consumers with less disposable income

or low consumption rates satisfy their

primary needs (Hsieh et al., JAMS 2004).

Consumers living in countries with high

international trade are more often

confronted with different CR signals,

which reduces the likelihood of favorable

associations with a particular MNC

H4. National economic differences



in countries with (a) high income, (b) high

consumption expenditures, and (c) low

international trade.

Economic

Income

Consumption expenditures

International trade

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

iLoy

sCR



Slide 29

Hypotheses development (V)

Consumers living in globally connected

societies have the opportunity to receive

and discuss CR information more

frequently.

Information is more accessible in more

connected countries.

Internet and mobile phone users tend to

increase their active information search

when making decisions (e.g. Ratchford et al.,

JMR 2003).

Consumers brand perceptions change

due to their international tourism

activities (Bengtsson et al., 2010).

H5. Differences in national global

connectedness moderate the relationship

between CR and loyalty; that is, the

relationship is stronger in countries with (a)

high Internet usage, (b) high no. of mobile

phones, and (c) high tourism activities.

Connectedness

Internet user

Mobile phones

Tourism activities

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

iLoy

sCR



Slide 30

Hypotheses development (VI)

Brand perceptions are dependent on

consumers’ educational level (e.g.,

Morgeson et al., JAMS 2011).

Literate consumers know how to inform

themselves and to conduct effective

information search (Morgeson et al., JAMS 2011).

Illiterate consumers make greater effort

to retrieve relevant information (Viswanthan

et al., JM 2005).

A high number of scientific articles

might reinforce interactions with MNCs

and their information through spillover

effects (e.g., Jaffe et al., QJE 1992).

H6. National knowledge differences



in countries with (a) high literacy rate, (b)

high tertiary school enrollment, and (c) high

number of scientific articles.

Knowledge

Literacy rate

Tertiary school enrollment

Number of scientific articles

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

iLoy

sCR



Slide 31

Hypotheses development (VII)

In societies with highly reliable, certain

and stable democratic environments,

consumers have confidence in their

governance (Dean, 2007).

The confidence might be transferred to

MNCs since consumers know that

untrustworthy MNCs are punished in a

politically stable or democratic

environment.

In countries with high corruption, CR

serves as the function of confidence

building.

H6. National political differences moderate

the relationship between CR and loyalty;

that is, the relationship is stronger in

countries with (a) high political uncertainty,

(b) low democratic character, and (c) high

corruption.

Politic

Policy-making uncertainty

Democratic character

Corruption

Corporate

reputation (CR)

Loyalty

(Loy)

Individual level

Country level

sCR iLoy

iLoy

sCR



Slide 32

Sample design

A multinational corporation with a standardized corporate brand.

Country selection is based on their importance for the corporation.

Data collection took place in 44 countries and were collected by a

commercial marketing research agency (four countries have been excluded

due to missing data on several dimensions).

Quota sampling: distribution of population acc. to gender, age, and average

income.

Balanced data design (average n of the five smallest countries)

Countries=40

Argentina China France Italy Malaysia Philippines South Africa Turkey

Australia Colombia Germany Japan Mexico Poland Spain UK

Belgium Denmark Guatemala Korea Netherlands Russia Sweden USA

Brazil Estonia India Latvia New Zealand Saudi Arabia Switzerland Venezuela

Canada Finland Indonesia Lithuania Norway Singapore Thailand Vietnam

Sample

N=13,665 Female Male Total

Age 18 to 25 18.80% 19.20% 19.00%

26 to 35 22.40% 23.20% 22.80%

36 to 45 24.00% 24.30% 24.10%

46 to 55 23.10% 23.00% 23.10%

56 to 65 11.70% 10.30% 10.90%

Total 48.60% 51.40% 100.00%



Slide 33

Established five-point Likert-type scales

Controls: age, gender

Translation-back-translation (Hult et al., JIBS 2008)

Tests of reliability, validity, biases and measurement invariance

Measurement on individual level

Construct/dimension Item/variable Source

Individual level

Corporate

Reputation

(CR)

Customer orientation

(CO)

CO1: [Company] has employees who are concerned about customer needs.

Walsh and Beatty (2007);

Walsh et al. (2009a)

CO2: [Company] has employees who are polite towards their customers.

CO3: [Company] is concerned about its customers.

Good employer (GE)

GE1: [Company] appears to be a good employer.

GE2: [Company] seems to have an excellent leadership style.

GE3: [Company] seems to treat its employees well.

Product range quality

(PRQ)

PRQ1: [Company] is a strong, reliable company.

PRQ2: [Company] offers high-quality products.

PRQ3: [Company] develops innovative products

Social and environmental

responsibility (SER)

SER1: [Company] would reduce its profits to ensure a clean environment.

SER2: [Company] seems to make an effort to create new jobs.

SER3: [Company] seems to be environmentally responsible.

Reliable and financial

strong company (RFC)

RFC1: [Company] looks like it has strong prospects for future growth.

RFC2: [Company] seems to recognize and take advantages of market opportunities.

RFC3: [Company] tends to outperform competitor.

Loyalty

LOY1: I am a loyal customer of [Company].

Oliver (1999) LOY2: I have developed a good relationship with [Company].

LOY3: I am certain that I will buy products/offers of [Company].



Slide 34

Reliability and validity

Item MV/Std. FL KMO ItTC α CR λ AVE

Corporate

reputation

(CR)

Customer orientation (CO)

CO1 3.44/.867 .932

.750

.841

.907 .908

.891

.847 CO2 3.44/.849 .916 .809 .865

CO3 3.46/.872 .908 .795 .872

Good employer (GE)

GE1 3.54/.879 .935

.758

.851

.920 .921

.899

.861 GE2 3.52/.888 .917 .815 .879

GE3 3.48/.849 .934 .848 .896

Product range

quality (PRQ)

PRQ1 3.79/.922 .926

.753

.830

.913 .914

.888

.842 PRQ2 3.77/.919 .934 .848 .897

PRQ3 3.66/.906 .909 .799 .865



SER1 3.11/.995 .900

.743

.772

.882 .882

.811

.793 SER2 3.32/.875 .888 .751 .843

SER3 3.34/.945 .914 .798 .882

Reliable and financial strong

company (RFC)

RFC1 3.67/.902 .923

.757

.823

.910 .916

.902

.845 RFC2 3.65/.900 .925 .823 .877

RFC3 3.55/.896 .914 .802 .877

Corporate

reputation

(CR, parcels)

CO 3.47/.806 .906

.896

.848

.939 .939

.880

.861

GE 3.51/.810 .924 .874 .908

PRQ 3.74/.846 .910 .854 .891

SER 3.26/.845 .846 .766 .801

RFC 3.62/.828 .897 .833 .870

Loyalty

(Loy)

Loy1 3.00/1.158 .956

.732

.898

.950 .952

.938

.849 Loy2 3.16/1.141 .933 .853 .877

Loy3 3.03/1.101 .974 .938 .982

Confirmatory model fit of single CR dimensions: CFI .980 TLI .975; RMSEA .055; SRMR .029; ²(120) = 5140:473.

Confirmatory model fit of parceled CR dimensions: CFI .977 TLI .966; RMSEA .102; SRMR .034; ²(19) = 2713.804. Introduction – Conceptualization and hypotheses development – Empirical study – Results – Implications – Limitations/Further Research


Slide 35

Measurement invariance

Model CFI (Δ CFI)

RMSEA (Δ RMSEA)

SRMR (Δ SRMR)

TLI (Δ TLI)

χ²/df (p-value)

χ²-Difference (p-value)

Model 1: .858 .154 .046 .820 43862.021/4840

Configural invariance (.000)

Model 2: .852 .150 .064 .829 45938.336/5308 2076.315

Metric invariance (.006) (.004) (.018) (.009) (.000) (.000)

Model 3: .843 .149 .070 .829 50040.292/5776 4101.957

Scalar invariance (.009) (.001) (.006) (.000) (.000) (.000)



Slide 36

Measurement adapted from Berry et al. (JIBS 2011)

Data were collected according to the year of survey

Control: country experience

Measurement on country level

Construct/dimension Item/variable Source

Individual level

Cor-

porate

Reputatio

n

(CR)

Customer orientation

(CO)

CO1: [MNC] has employees who are concerned about customer needs.

Walsh and

Beatty (2007);

Walsh et al.

(2009a)

CO2: [MNC] has employees who are polite towards their customers.

CO3: [MNC] is concerned about its customers.

Good employer (GE)

GE1: [MNC] appears to be a good employer.

GE2: [MNC] seems to have an excellent leadership style.

GE3: [MNC] seems to treat its employees well.

Product range quality

(PRQ)

PRQ1: [MNC] is a strong, reliable company.

PRQ2: [MNC] offers high-quality products.

PRQ3: [MNC] develops innovative products.



SER1: [MNC] would reduce its profits to ensure a clean environment.

SER2: [MNC] seems to make an effort to create new jobs.

SER3: [MNC] seems to be environmentally responsible.

Reliable and financial

strong company (RFC)

RFC1: [MNC] looks like it has strong prospects for future growth.

RFC2: [MNC] seems to recognize and take advantages of market opportunities.

RFC3: [MNC] tends to outperform competitor.

Loyalty

LOY1: I am a loyal customer of [MNC]. Oliver (1999;

2015); Walsh and

Beatty (2007)

LOY2: I have developed a good relationship with [MNC].

LOY3: I am certain that I will buy products/offers of [MNC].

Country level (adapted from Berry et al. 2010)

Cultural

Questions on values, e.g.,

Embeddedness respect for tradition, being moderate, and preserving public image.

(Schwartz 1994;

1999)

Autonomy (intellectual) creativity, broad-minded, and curiosity.

Autonomy (affective) pleasure, exciting life, and enjoying life.

Hierarchy authority, social power, and humble.

Egalitarianism equality, honesty, and responsibility.

Mastery being daring, ambitiousness, and independence.

Harmony protecting the environment, unity with nature and world of beauty.

Demogra

phic

Population above 65 Population ages 65 and above (% of total). WDI

Life expectancy Life expectancy at birth, total (years).

Household size Average household size. World Bank

Econo-

mic

Income GDP per capita (2000 US$).

WDI Household consumption Household final consumption expenditure (% of GDP).

International trade Imports and Exports of goods and services (% GDP).

Global

connecte

dness

Internet user Internet user per 1,000 people. WDI

Mobile phones Number of mobile phones per capita. CIA Factbook

International tourism International tourism, receipts and expenditures (% of GDP). WDI

Know-

ledge

Literacy rate Literacy rate of total adults (%). CIA Factbook

Tertiary school enrollment School enrollment, tertiary (% of gross). WDI

Scientific articles Number of scientific articles per 1 million populations.

Political

(reverse

coded)

Policy-making uncertainty Political stability (considering independent institutional actors with veto power). POLCONV

Democratic character Democracy score. Freed. House

Corruption Corruption perceptions index. Transp. Internat.


Slide 37

Multi-level model specification: consumers are nested within countries

Dependent variable is explained by individual and country level differences.

Independent variable has been grand-mean centered (Hox, 2010).

Intraclass correlation: 18.8%

Stepwise testing procedure (acc. to Raudenbrush & Bryk, 2002) using Mplus

Null model

Random intercept baseline model (adding individual level control variables)

Random intercept full model (adding predictor variable on the individual level)

Random intercept and slope baseline model (adding control variable on the

country level and allowing slope to be random)

Random intercept and slope full models (adding cross-level interactions)

Method



Slide 38

CR Loy Intercept Slope

Expl. var.

(single)

Expl. var.

(overall)

p p p

Cultural dimension

Embeddedness .994 *** .437 *** .106 * 28.3

43.3

(1.457) (.324) (.079)

Autonomy (intellectual) .969 *** -.330 *** -.076 * 23.3

(1.421) (-.265) (-.062)

Autonomy (affective) .933 *** -.315 *** -.009 ns 28.3

(1.368) (-.275) (-.008)

Hierarchy .998 *** .207 *** .002 * 15.0

(1.463) (.205) (.001)

Egalitarianism .974 *** -.020 ns -.011 ns 1.7

(1.428) (-.012) (-.006)

Mastery .974 *** .073 * -.081 ** 1.7

(1.428) (.023) (-.025)

Harmony .910 *** .048 ns .072 *** 33.3

(1.334) (.031) (.046)

Demographic dimension

Population above 65 .985 *** -.001 * .001 *** 23.3

26.7

(1.443) (-.012) (.012)

Life expectancy .845 *** .003 ns .002 ns 0.1

(1.238) (.035) (.023)

Household size 1.045 *** .136 *** -.014 ns 18.3

(1.531) (.235) (-.024)

Economic dimension

Income .909 *** -.013 *** .010 ns 50.0

41.7

(1.332) (-.032) (.025)

Household consumption .842 *** .005 * .003 * 5.0

(1.234) (.109) (.065)

International trade 1.082 *** .002 ns -.001 * 1.7

(1.585) (.260) (-.130)

Results (1)


Slide 39

Results (2)

CR Loy Intercept Slope

Expl. var.

(single)

Expl. var.

(overall)

p p p

Global connectedness dimension

Internet user 1.030 *** -.006 *** -.001 ns 33.3

33.3

(1.509) (-.306) (-.051)

Mobile phones 1.156 *** -.104 ns -.125 * 3.3

(1.694) (-.060) (-.072)

International tourism .985 *** .012 * .008 * 6.7

(1.443) (.120) (.080)

Knowledge dimension

Literacy rate .988 *** .003 * .026 *** 1.7

3.3

(1.448) (.048) (.417)

Tertiary school enrollment .990 *** .004 * .010 * 3.3

(1.451) (.179) (.449)

Scientific articles .982 *** .290 ns .020 ** 1.0

(1.439) (.021) (.001)

Politic dimension (reverse coded)

Policy making uncertainty 1.008 *** -.251 * -.008 ns 5.0

41.7

(1.447) (-.225) (-.003)

Democratic character 1.015 *** .054 *** -.005 ns 11.7

(1.487) (.188) (-.017)

Corruption 1.005 *** -.152 *** -.053 * 38.3

(1.472) (-.789) (-.275)



Slide 40

Implications

Theoretical

The CR – loyalty relationship is stable across countries.

CR pays off by directly influencing consumers’ intention and readiness to purchase the

products or offers of a firm.

CR is an internationally important differentiation criterion (Smith et al., JSM 2010).

Country level moderators determine CR-loyalty relationship in varying degrees.

Knowledge on further country factors is important in the almost exclusively culturally

centered reputation research.

Institutional moderators are not systematically observed in reputation research.

Single indicators of the different dimensions account for diverse variations in intercept

and slopes.

Practical: Managers should pay attention to external factors which

influence their CR perceptions to be able to control for them.



Slide 41

Limitations and further research

Data and sample

Broadening the database (further countries might change the results).

Including further MNCs with different branding strategies.

Measurement and method

Alternative measurements exist, e.g. for CR (Sarstedt et al., JWB 2013) or loyalty (Oliver, JoM 1999).

Further measurements of internal and external moderators should be considered.

Theory and framework

Further institutional frameworks of moderators exit, and no common agreement on

valid indicators has been reached (Berry et al., JIBS 2010; Scott, 2001).

Extension of the conceptual model since CR might have also an indirect effect on

consumer behavior (e.g., Berens et al., JM 2005).

Inclusion of behavioral factors which may influence how consumers perceive

MNCs.


internationales markenmanagement · 2016. 2. 2. · country, e.g., riefler, jim 2012; winit et al.,...

Documents