global product strategy: a longitudinal multi … · attributes, the relationship between product...

Global Prodnct Strategy:.... Keillor, Kohut, Walsh and Hausknecht

GLOBAL PRODUCT STRATEGY: A LONGITUDINALMULTI-COUNTRY PRODUCT ATTRIBUTE STUDY

BRUCE D. KEILLOR, Youngstown State UniversityJAMES KOHUT, Youngstown State University

DONNA M. WALSH, Youngstown State UniversityDOUGLASS HAUSKNECHT, The University of Akron

For many companies a fundamental marketing challenge is to create a global strategy which willallow for maximum use of existing product offerings and marketing activities throughstandardization while simultaneously "acting local" in order to effectively adjust to unique aspectsof any given market. The purpose of this study is to investigate global product strategy and the issueof identijying relevant areas where standardization may be possible, and where the need to "actlocal" may be necessary, in the context of product offering attributes using a longitudinal approach.This study will investigate potential differences along 16 "sought for" product attributes overapproximately a ten year period across three distinct intemational markets, explore how thoseidentified relevant attributes change across three different product categories. The results show thatin developing a long-term global product strategy it is important to begin product positioning,differentiation, and promotional activities with the fundamental product attributes of quality, price,appearance, and availability.

INTRODUCTION

At the end of the twentieth centtuy the growthimperative and the prevalence of maturedomestic markets resulted in many firms world-wide to look beyond their local marketboundaries. This movement into intemationalmarkets presented a new set of challenges forthese organizations unfamiliar with the variousnuances of a marketplace characterized bycultural, economic, political, and competitivedifferences (Felhnan 1998). For many of thesecompanies, the fundamental marketingobjective was to create a global strategy whichwould allow for maximum use of existingproduct offerings and market activities throughstandardized operations wdiile simultaneously"acting local" (Wills, Samli, and Jacobs 1991)in an effort to adjust to unique aspects of anygiven market.

The advantages of such a global strategy, withthe emphasis on standardizing marketing effortsThe Maiketing Management JoumalVolume 21, Issue 1, Pages 124-139Copyright O 2011, The Maiketing Management AssociationAll rights of lepioduction in any fonn reserved

wherever and whenever possible were then, andcontinue to be, many. These include: 1)increased cost savings through standardizedresearch and development, packaging, productdesign, etc., 2) economies of scale, 3)consistency of product offering whichfacilitates quality confrol, and 4) similarsegmentation strategies which allow for similarpromotional efforts. Ten years into the 21^century this fundamental goal for intemationalmarket operations has not changed. However,what has changed over the preceding decade isthe nature and characteristics of the globalmarketplace. No longer characterized byunprecedented growth, global markets now areexperiencing almost equally unprecedentedeconomic pressures which have beenaccompanied by cultural, political, andcompetitive pressures. The growth imperativehas not diminished, but the need to improveeffectiveness and efficiencies in non-domesticmarkets has become more and more acute.

Clearly this changed market environmentmeans a static global approach to marketingstrategy is not without potential problems. It is

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2011 124

Global Product Strategy: Keillor, Kohut, Walsh and Hausknecht

frequently difiBcult, and time consuming, toascertain where and when standardization isappropriate over time. The purpose of thisstudy is to investigate global product strategyand the issue of identifying relevant areaswhere standardization may be possible, andwhere the need to "act local" may be necessary,in the context of product offering attributesusing a longitudinal approach. This study willinvestigate potential differences along 16"sought for" product attributes overapproximately a ten year period across threedistinct international markets, explore howthose identified relevant attributes changeacross three different product categories, andconsider the consistency of these relevantproduct attributes within each market across thethree product categories by replicating andcomparing the results of Keillor, Hauskneckt,and Parker's (2001) study. The importance of"acting local", particularly in relation to a givenfirm's product offering, is of fundamentalimportance to successful overseas operationsbut little research exists v\4ùch deals withproduct attributes in an intemational or globalmarketing context (Kalyanaram and Krishnan1997) particularly vdien potential marketchanges over time are taken into accoimt.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Relevant to this study is a substantial body ofwork which addresses general product strategyissues such as product definition, productcategorization, the demarcation of productattributes, the relationship between productoffering and brand strategy, and the relationshipbetween product attributes and price.Unfortunately, although such studies aregrowing in number, there is a lack of productattribute/product strategy research using anintemational or global perspective. In order tofidly understand product strategy, considerationof dimensions beyond the formal product ortangible good is necessary. Both the study ofproduct strategy, and the practice of productplanning, require attention be given to all of thefeatures from wdiich consumers might derivevalue. Although clearly not comprehensive, thereview here highlights important studies

125

Specifically relevant to this research of theproduct literature going back several decadeswhich identified sixteen different attributeswhich consistently feature in consumers'product choice decisions (Table 1).

In the international/global product strategyliterature the earliest studies begin by buudingon the most fundamental difference in producttype; that is, industrial versus consumerproducts. In their 1981 article, McGuiness andLittle (1981) provided the foundation fordeveloping successful product sfrategies in anon-domestic market. These authors identifythe characteristics of successful export firms -size, level of technology, local vs. foreignownership - as well as characteristics ofsuccessfiil export products - relative advantage,compatibility, risk, complexity, availability - inthe industrial realm. They then (McGuinessand Little 1981) began to explore industrialproduct characteristics wiiich may make aproduct more amenable to standardization inthe context of several non-domestic markets.Their conclusion was that, for industrialproducts, technological innovations wereuniversally sought out in global markets andthat this "new-ness" can be used as a productattribute vMch wall successfully build greaterintemational sales. The results of this research(McGuiness and Little 1981) as it pertains tothis study is support for the notion that specificproduct attributes can span different marketsaround the world and that the overall marketenvironment can be a key influence on thelikely success of a non-domestic productoffering in any given market.

Moving from the marketing of industrialproducts in a non-domestic market to themarketing of consumer products in similar non-domestic environments, Jain (1989) argues totalstandardization of a product offering, asreflected by its attributes, is unrealistic. Whilethe type of product and its composite attributesare basic determinants of the degree to vs iichany offering must be adapted, or, altemaüvely,can be standardized, the environmentalinfluence of cultural preferences, varied productexperience and knowledge, and varied

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2011

Global Prodnct Strategy:.... Keillor, Kohut, Walsh and Hausknecht

TABLE 1Identified Product Attributes

Attribute

Product Quality

Hygiene/Clean Appearance

Chemical Free/Organic Components

Service Availability/Retum Policy

Attractive Packaging/Attractive Appearance

Product Availability

Warranty/Guarantee

Value/Price

Number of Features/Product Flexibility

Recyclability/Enviromnentally Friendly

Usable Packaging/Functional Features

Safety/Personal Risk

Brand Image

Store Image/Retailer Image

Financing/Credit

Locally Produced/Product Origin

Supporting Literature

Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991); Aaker and Kel-ler (1990)Zeithaml (1998); Phillips, Chang and Buzzell (1983)Aliman and Othman (2007); Wang and Chen (2004)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Aaker and Keller (1990)Chandler and Drucker (1993)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Aaker and Keller (1990)Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán (2001)Smith (1992)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Aaker and KeUer (1990)Smith (1992)

Biel(1992)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Aaker and Keller (1990)Bloch and Richins (1983); Yi and Jeon (2003)Yeo and Donthu (2002); Smith (1992)Bloch and Richins (1983)Jacoby, Olson and Haddock (1971)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Aaker and Keller (1990)Chandler and Drucker (1993)Yi (1990)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991)Aaker and Keller (1990)Bloch and Richins (1983)

Aliman and Otbman (2007); Yeo and Donthu (2002)Aaker, Martinez and Garsiera (2001)Smith (1992); Biel (1992)Valette-Florence and Rapacchi (1991); Yi (1990)Collins-Dodd and Lindley (2003)Semiga, Riel and Ambrosini (2003)Biel (1992); Meyer-Waarden (2006);Rittippant, et al. (2009)Smith (1992)Bloch and Richins (1983)Aliman and Othman (2007)Wang and Chen (2004)Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998)

Marketing Management Joumal, Spring 2011 126

Global Product Strategy:. ; . . Keillor, Kohut, Walsh and Hausknecht

economic abilify can all contribute to the needto make adjustments to product strategy as afirm moves fi-om one market around the worldto another. Like McGuiness and Little (1981),Jain (1989) supports the proposition thatindustrial products are more suitable forstandardization than consumer products.However, Jain (1989) also presents a series offuture research propositions built around thesupposition that as markets become moreculturally and economically diverse, andconsumer behavior and characteristics change,the potential for a given organization tostandardize its product offering in these marketsand still achieve substantial levels of success isgreatly reduced. Further, Samiee and Roth(1992) argue that consumer products are morelikely to require higher levels of customizationwith firms emphasizing specialfy productsbeing better able to introduce elements ofstandardization in their products than thosedealing in convenience products (e.g., food)wiiere tastes and preferences may bedetermined by culture.

Emphasis on different product attributes acrossmarkets may also be the result of differentlevels of product familiarify and levels ofconsumer involvement (Wills, SamU, andJacobs 1991). This approach points out theimportance of matching product features andattributes with consumer demands and marketcharacteristics. Thus, the knowledge ofrelevant product attributes in any given non-domestic market is cmcial for the successfuldiffusion of product offerings new to a marketas these attributes have a direct impact on thespeed of that diffusion of process (Takada andJain 1991). Relative advantage of the product,compatibilify with the needs of the potentialadopters, complexity, trialability, andobservabilify (Rogers 1983) all hiave thepotential to substantially impact the abilify of aproduct offering to be more rapidly accepted ina non-domestic market environment.

An example of the need to match product, andproduct differentiation, strategies to the needsand characteristics of individual markets can beseen in the differences in advertising content

127

across markets. The fundamental purpose of anad is to communicate relevant ideas andinformation to the target audience (Spreng,MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996). The notionthat generalizable differences may exist acrossmarkets provides support for the case forattribute-based product strategy research inintemational/global marketing. In the case ofadvertising such research would focus ondetermining relevant product attributes acrossdifferent markets as a mechanism for improvingglobal advertising effectiveness. Lin (1993)provides evidence for this proposition in acomparative study of Japanese and Americanadvertisements. In the study the author (Lin1993) concluded Japanese advertisementstended to emphasize product attributes notdirectly related to the core product offeringsuch as product packaging and availabilify.American advertisements, on the other hand,focused on product attributes more directlyassociated with the core product offering (e.g.,price, product qualify, and performance).Aaker and Maheswaran (1997) ¿so provide astrong theoretical position that differences inproduct attribute emphasis and communicationprocessing may be attributable to societal/cultural influences and orientation (e.g., China/collective versus U.S./individualistic). This isfurther supported by Han and Shavitt (1994)wiio concluded successful attribute appealsdiffer across cultures.

The theme that is established throughout theproduct strategy literature is the importance ofmatching product differentiation strategy,especially as it relates to product attributes,with the needs of different markets. From theperspective of a changing environment, whichhas been a marked characteristic of the globalmarketplace, Feenstra and Levinsohn (1995)note that, as markets and products change, sodoes the need to adjust and reconcile productdifferentiation strategies and the attributeswhich constitute a product offering.Assuming an organization has a functionallysound product offering prior to entering a non-domestic market, the next step, as discussedabove, is to identify specific relevant productattributes (MacMillan and McGrath 1996).

Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2011


Thus, the stage is set for the need to investigatethe generally accepted product attributes (seeTable 1) and their importance across severaldiverse marketplaces (Klein, Ettenson, andMorris 1998) over time. By doing so, thisstudy begins to lay the groundwork for dealingwith the problem of how to effectively developa successful global product strategy and howthat strategy needs to be flexible as marketconditions change. Such an approach providesa means to reconcile the advantages of a globalstrategy while implementing a marketorientation outside of the familiar domesticmarket taking into account the fact that themarket environment, domestic or non-domestic,is not static. Posten (1996) argues that a key tobuilding a successful intemational/globalproduct strategy is investigating the relevanceof more, rather than fewer, product attributes.While previous research (e.g., McGuiness andLittle 1981) has dealt with this issue in therealm of industrial products, little publishedresearch exists which deals with this problem inthe area of consumer products on a large scale(i.e., beyond a limited number of productattributes) particularly in the context of alongitudinal study. By better understanding theproduct attributes which have the potential toremain stable across diverse markets over time,and those which may change, firms will be in abetter position to match their productdifferentiation strategy to meet both the needsof the extemal market and the requirements ofthe firm's intemai resource base therebyachieving long-term global success.

METHODOLOGY

Any investigation of the relevance of productattributes across different markets and productclassifications represents substantialmethodological challenges. These include:selection of the markets from whichrespondents will be drawn, the samplingprocedure by which the individual respondentsare selected, measurement issues such asspecification of the product attributes, and theevaluation of the reliabilify/validify of themeasurement instruments as reflected in thecollected data.

Market Selection

The first obstacle to overcome in the originalstudy was to identify markets from whichreasonably high qualify respondent data couldbe obtained. The markets chosen were requiredto represent viable areas of opportunify formarketers and still be distinct in their economic,cultural, and consumer behavior characteristics.The countries determined to fiilfiU these criteriawere the United States, France, and Malaysia.At the time of the original study, the UnitedStates was an obvious choice given its role as amajor player in the global economy withexports well in excess of 1 trillion dollars.While the intervening economic downturn, andsubsequent movement toward recovery, hasaffected the U.S. market it remains a globalmarket leader. The selection of two othermarkets was more problematic. While it wasnecessary to identify markets from which datacould be gathered, at the same time the marketsselected would need to be reasonablyrepresentative as resource constraints preventedthe gathering of data from a large number ofcountries. Given the exploratory nature of theresearch it was determined a nation from themajor global market region of the EuropeanUnion (France) and an emerging market(Malaysia) would be appropriate. When pairedwith the United States these two additionalnations not only serve as a basis for a studywhich can be argued to be global in nature, theyalso can be shown to be reasonably distinctacross economic, cultural, and consumerbehavior lines.

Sampling Procedure

The data in the original study and thissubsequent follow-up study was collectedthrou¿i personal intercept interviews overapproximately a three month period of time(Spring 2000 and Fall 2009), using a quotasampling method. The personal interviewmethod of data collection has several strengthswhich make it particularly well suited forconducting research in multiple countries.Personal interviews allow the individualgathering the data to clarify and explain


Global Product Strategy:.... Keillor, Kohut, Walsh and Hausknecht

ambiguous or potentially confusing questions(Nowell and Stanley 1991; Bush and Hair1985), which is particularly important vAiencollecting data in markets \»diere languagebaniers may exist (Kishii 1994). The ability toexplain the selected terminology used todescribe the various product attributes is animportant concem and a key reason foremploying personal intercept interviews.Beyond clarification and comprehensiondifficulties, multicultural/multinational datacollection frequently encounters a ntimber ofbias-related problems, particularly socialdesirability and halo biases. Methodologically,personal interviews have been shown to be lesssusceptible to social desirabiHfy and halo biasesthan other poptüar forms of data collection(Han, Lee, and Ro 1994; Bush and Hair 1985).

The use of a quota sampling technique also hasadvantages that help to overcome problemsassociated with intemational data collection. Incollecting intemational data, random samplingtechniques used in a researchers home marketare often either impossible to implement orinappropriate to apply causing some researchersto fall back on convenience samples. Incontrast to random or convenience samplingapproaches, quota sampling allows theresearcher to obtain a data base vMch isrepresentative of the population as a vsdiolealong predetermined criteria (e.g., age, gender,etc.).

In comparing quota sampling to randomsampling. Marsh and Scarbrough (1990) foundno significant differences between respondentsv ^ c h would represent substantial data biases.Further, these authors (Marsh and Scarbrough1990) also found no significant non-responsebiases existed when quota samples werecompared to random samples. Sudman (1980)suggests using quota sampling based on ageand gender to reduce potential biases inintercept-based data collection. The quotasample constmcted for the original and follow-up studies were gathered so that each wasrepresentative of the American, French, andMalay population based on age and genderdistribution (Sudman 1980). To finther ensure

a sufficiently high level of data reliabilify andvalidity, the survey instmment was franslatedinto French and Malay by native speakers. Itwas then back-translated (Douglas and Craig1983) as means of identifying potentialterminology problems. The same stjrveyinstmment used in the initial study was used inthe follow-up study.

Measurement

One of the challenges in conducting thisresearch was selecting the product attributesrelevant to individual consumers. The listneeded to be reasonably comprehensive yetconcise enough to facilitate respondentcooperation and data analysis. The identifiedattributes also needed to be relevant over time.Using the existing literature as an initial startingpoint, sixteen relevant product attributes (seeTable 1) were specified wiiich were deemed tobe well grounded in existing literature, concise,comprehensive, and sufficiently generalizableacross product classification categories overtime. In the collection of both samples,respondents were asked to indicate the extent towhich each of the attributes was important intheir purchase of a convenience product(grocery products), a shopping product(clothing), and a specialfy product (anautomobUe) based on a 6-point Likert scaleranging from l=not important to 6=veryimportant.

While it may be argued that attempting toidentify relevant and generalizable productattributes through the use of a Ust-basedapproach is problematic, Srinivasan and Park(1997) support the efficacy of such a self-explicated approach for identifying customerpreferences for product attributes. Further,Braivik and Supphellen (2003) demonstrate thatproduct attribute data can be reliably andvalidly collected using intercept interviews andthey provide empirical support for the use ofproduct attribute evaluation as a predictor ofproduct purchase intention at all levels ofproduct category involvement.

129 Marketing Management Journal, Spring 2011


Factor analysis was employed to assess thereliability and validity of the measurementinstrument of both samples. It was importantfor comparative purposes that there be a highlevel of consistency between productclassifications and the underlying factors withwhich each product attribute was associated.Therefore, 48 items (16 specified productattributes across the three identified productclassifications) were entered into each factoranalysis. A Varimax rotation was utilized andfactors established based on a minimum scaleitem loading of .40 (Rummel 1967). No itemsproduced factor loadings below the .40 cut-off.A reliability analysis was also conductedutilÍ2dng coefficient alpha (Cronbach 1951).

In the case of the initial study data an overallcomputation of coefficient alpha, using the 48items produced a coefficient alpha of .93 whilecomputed coefficient alphas for the 16 itemsbased on each product classification producedscores of .85, .85, and .79 for the respectiveconvenience (grocery products), shopping(clothing), and specialty (automobiles)classifications. Similar results were obtainedfrom the follow-up data with the overallcoefficient alpha for the 48 items being .90 andthe 16 items for each product categorybeing .83 (convenience/grocery products), .81(shopping/clothing), and .78 (specialfy/automobiles) respectively. All of thecoefficient alpha scores obtained from bothsamples exceeded the recommended .70criterion suggested by Nunnaly (1978).

DATA ANALYSIS

In the initial study a total of 372 completed andusable questionnaires were obtained (131 fromMalaysia, 129 from the United States, and 112from France). The follow-up study had acomparable sample size of 412 (141 fromMalaysia, 148 from the United States, and 123from France). Prior to subjecting the data tostatistical analysis, frequency distributions weretabulated for each item to ascertain possibleresponse biases or other data anomalies. Nonewere detected and the sample was determined

to be of sufficient quality to be subjected tostatistical analysis.

Economic Comparisons

The data in the study was analyzed by usingpaired significance tests of the mean responsesfor each group (i.e., Malaysia, France, and theUnited States) across the 16 specified productattributes within three basic product categories(i.e., convenience products represented bygrocery products, shopping products byclothing, and specialty products byautomobiles) using data from both the originaland follow-up study. Table 2 shows the resultsof the comparisons.

It has been suggested that the importanceplaced on product attributes should besignificanfly different across economicallydissimilar markets. That is, the more importantproduct attributes directly tied to a consumer'seconomic situation should be related to theindividual consumer's ability to engage inconsumption (e.g., price vs. income) in marketscharacterized as being less developed oreconomically less stable. Malaysia was themarket identified as being at the lower end ofthe economic spectrum, the United States onthe opposite end, with France somewhere in themiddle range. It is important to note that it isnot suggested here that the French economy isless developed than that of the U.S., in fact thetwo could be considered very similar in manyrespects. However, the market economy of theUnited States was shown to be substantiallymore stable in the years prior to the initialstudy. In the intervening years, while the U.S.has suffered substantial economic setbacks thishas been a worldwide phenomena and the U.S.appears to have emerged from this recessionfaster and stronger than most of the rest of theworld. From a consumer's perspective, theimplications of residing in a more developedeconomy (e.g., lower unemployment, lowerinflation, higher levels of disposable income,etc.) would potentially mean less emphasiswould be placed on "rational" consumptionattributes. It should also be noted that, in orderto obtain reliable and valid data, it was



Product Attnbixe

PlOuuul QiuliL J

Hyt^eDs'ClesD Appeal ai ice

Uionucal free/Oisimii, a>iiitKJi«3ub

Service Avaiiability/Kctum Policy

AttracOvoPackagm»'

Attractive ^)peaiance

PliKlud A vJmiUUlitjr

ValuoiPnce

Number of Fmtneir

Product Reñbility

lu^jr^aLallty/

Rn vi rorrm fínt**^ W FncDdly

Functional Features

Sat'tily/PciiMiiuiI Risk

Brand Image

Locally Produced/ftodud Ungii

2000

5.42" (G)

5.06 (CL)

5.58 (AU)

5.61" (G)

4.94 (CL)

4J5"(AXJ)

5.16" (G)

*M' (CL)

4.33* (AU)

4.43" (G)

4.23" (CL)

5.19 (AU)

3.74" (Ü)

3SV(CL)

4.14" (AU)

4.66" (G)

4.29 (CL)

4.93" (AU)

4.74" (G)

4J2* (CL)

5.57 (AU)

5.U3"(G)

4.91" (CL)

534" (AU)

3J8"(G)

3.7S"(CL)

4.67 (AU)

3.3B*(G)

3J7"(CL)

3.63" (AU)

3.66" (G)

3.4»" (CL)

3.64" (AU)

5.26" (G)

4.70« (CL)

5.62 (AU)

3.79 (G)

4.07 (CL)

4.60 (AU)

3.71 (G)

3.78 (CL)

4J3"(AU)

3.65" (G)

3 J4" (CL)

5.04 (AU)

3il6" (G)

3.58" (CL)

3.75« (AU)

TABLE 2

Product Attribute Mean Score Comparisous

Malaysia

2010

5.39 (G)

5.61 (CL)

5.55 (AU)

3.69 (CL)

3.71(AU)

4.27 (G)

4.85" (CL)

2.85 (AU)

3.70 (G)

423 (CL)

5.17 (AD)

4.35 (G)

3.77" (CL)

4J0"(AU)

5.00 (G)

452 (CL)

4.90 (AU)

4.66" (G)

3.24 (CL)

5.54 (AU)

5.15 (G)

496 (CL)

5.82 (AU)

3.4Ü"(G)

3.20 (CL)

5.31 (AU)

3.21 (G)

3.35 (CL)

3J0"(AU)

4.00 (G)

3.03 (CL)

3.78" (AU)

5.21" (G)

4.67" (CL)

5.58 (AU)

3.!W"(G)

5.03 (CL)

5.01 (AU)

3.72 (G)

461 (CL)

4.89 (AU)

2.86 (G)

3.81 (CL)

5.10(AU)

137 (CiZ41 (CL)

2.31 (AU)

2000 vs. 2010)

France

1999

5.41" (G)

5.28 (CL)

5.64 (AU)

5.57" (G)

4.64 (CL)

3.69 (AU)

4.32" (G)

3.20" (CL)

2.42 (Alfl

3.72 (G)

3.52 (CL)

4.78 (AU)

3.05 (Ü)

2.50 (CL)

2.66 (AU)

426 (G)

400 (CL)

445 (AU)

4.39" (U)

4J2"(CL)

5.67 (AU)

3.95 (G)

3.88 (CL)

468 (AU)

3.63" (G)

3.22 (CL)

484 (AU)

3.64" (G)

2.79" (CL)

Z91" (AU)

3.lf7"(G)

Z35(CL)

1.73 (AU)

4.50 (G)

3J5"(CL)

5.53 (AU)

3.33 (G)

3.66 (CL)

4.23 (AU)

3.34 (G)

3.56 (CL)

4.09" (AU)

2.93 (G)

2.71 (Q.)

467 (AU)

3JMI"(G)

2.95" (CL)

3.23" (AU)

2010

5.43 (G)

5.38 (CL)

5.69 (AU)

5.59 (G)

3.61 (CL)

3.73 (AU)

5.23" (G)

3.U (CL)

2.55 (AU)

4.36" (G)

417 (CL)

4.95 (AU)

4.00 (G)

260 (CL)

3.01 (AU)

4.78 (G)

448 (CL)

4.81 (AU)

4.41" (G)

3.01 (CL)

5.61 (AU)

496 (G)

461 (CL)

5.76 (AU)

3.57" (G)

3.19 (CL)

5.44 (AU)

4.11" (G)

3.19 (CL)

3.27" (AU)

3.91 (G)

Z79(CL)

1.99 (AXfl

4.28 (G)

4.57" (CL)

5.55 (AU)

3.31 (G)

498 (CL)

495 (AU)

3.51 (G)

473 (CL)

481 (AU)

Z95(G)

3.83 (CL)

4.96 (AU)

3.83" (G)

135 (CL)

Z65(AU)

1999

5.0Ü (G)

5.55 (CL)

5.85" (AU)

5.10 (G)

461 (CL)

3.39 (AU)

3.23 (G)

Z59(CL)

Z03(AU)

4. i 1 (G)

3.96 (CL)

5.31" (AU)

3.36 (G)

3J7"(CL)

4.06" (AU)

4J»4"(G)

4 J 6 2 " ( C L )

4 6 0 (AU)

3.32 (G)

3.75 (CL)

5.77 (AU)

5.25" (G)

5.27" (CL)

5.73" (AU)

Z67 (G)

3.49 (CL)

5.62" (AU)

Z87 (G)

Z08(CL)

Z3I (AU)

3.04 (G)

Z14(CL)

234« (AU)

4.31 (G)

Z97(CL)

5.38 (AU)

4.84" (CL)

5.0S"(AU)

3.44 (G)

4.44" (CL)

3.45 (AU)

2.55 (G)

Z79(CL)

5.12 (AU)

2.10 (G)

1.64 (CL)

Z11(AU)

Umted States

2010

5.35 (G)

5.65 (CL)

5.85 (AU)

5.46 (G)

3.56 (CL)

3.47 (AU)

2.8« (G)

Z66(CL)

Z42(AU)

3.80 (G)

438 (CL)

5.24 (AU)

4.18 (G)

3.57« (CL)

4ai" (AU)

5.09(G)

472 (CL)

4.76 (AU)

3.13 (G)

3.11 (CL)

5.69 (AU)

5.30 (G)

5.15 (CL)

5.55 (AU)

Z77(G)

3.15 (CL)

5.65 (AU)

Z81 (G)

3.21 (CL)

Z26 (AU)

3.86 (G)

281 (CL)

335« (AU)

4.30 (G)

283 (CL)

5.47 (AU)

4.<I!I"(G)

5.11 (CL)

5.12 (AU)

3.46 (G)

4.71 (CL)

493 (AU)

3.5/" (G)

4.04 (CL)

5.20 (AU)

1.79 (G)

1.90 (CL)

222 (AU)

G = GrocoryProducts CL = aothing AU = Autoin(*üe ' " S i g . <.O1

NOTE: Based on a scale ranging from 1 = Not Inqwrtant to 6 = Very ImpoTtant



necessary to identify a lesser-developed, oremerging, market which also populated byconsumers who are reasonably sophisticated inproduct evaluation and consumption. This ledto the choice of Malaysia as the third market(Aliman and Othman 2007).

In the first study a review of the identifiedproduct attributes showed that the Malaysianrespondents reported placing relatively highlevels of importance on product attributeswhich were tied directly to their economiccondition and the financial/economic risksassociated with obtaining and consuming agiven product. This was demonstrated by thelower end of the product classification,convenience goods (grocery products). Withthese products the Malaysian consumers placedhigh levels of importance on such attributes asproduct qualify, warranfy/guarantee, retumpolicy, and even financing/credit. At the sametime, these same respondents reported relativelylow levels of importance being placed onattributes related to affective aspects ofconsumption (e.g., brand image). While theMalaysian respondents had some of the sameemphasized product attributes in common withthe French respondents, a comparison in thecontext of all three market economies showed amore complex pattem. Taking into account thedata obtained fi-om the Malaysian market,through the French market, to the United Statesrevealed a tendency toward more emphasis onimage and psychic-related attributes in the moredeveloped/stable markets. For example, boththe Malaysian and French respondents placed ahigh level of importance on product qualify forgrocery products when compared with the U.S.respondents. At the same time, Frenchrespondents did not place a high level ofimportance on financing and credit for groceryproducts. The U.S. consumers reported brandimage to be significantly more important forgrocery products than either the Malaysian orFrench consumers.

In the second study, several notable differencesfi-om the initial study were revealed in the dataanalysis. Malaysian consumers continue toplace high levels of importance on product

qualify and warranfy/guarantee for conveniencegoods, in contrast to the initial study they didnot place significantly high levels ofimportance on financing and credits but doemphasize brand image as an important productattribute. The notion that these consumers seekout chemical fi-ee or organic grocery productsand place high importance on serviceavailabilify and the recyclabilify of convenienceproducts is also no longer supported. Overall,the results of the second study show a generalmovement toward image and psychic-relatedattributes in all three markets.

An altemative means of considering the data inlight of the first research question is to note thelevels, based on the 6-point scale used in themeasurement instrument, reported for eachattribute across the three samples. In the initialstudy the Malaysian respondents tended toreport relatively high levels of importancebeing attached to "practical" product attributessuch as product qualify, cleanliness, serviceavailabilify/retum policy, product availabilify,warranfy/guarantee, value/price, and safefyacross all three product classificationcategories. These same respondents reportedrelatively low levels of importance for moreaffective product attributes such as brandimage, store/retaüer image, features, andrecyclabilify. As one then compares the resultsof the original study obtained fi-om the othermarkets (France and the United States), thereappears to be a movement away fi-om similarhigh levels of importance being placed onpractical product attributes and increased levelsof importance being placed on the image/psychic attributes (e.g., brand image). Theresults fi-om the first study do tend to providesome support for the notion that as marketsbecome more developed economically,consumers in those markets began to evaluateproducts more on image-related attributes whileconsumers in lesser developed markets focusedon objective/practical product attributes.However, as noted above, the more recent datadoes not support this distinction whenconsidering the three markets.



Cultural/Consumer Behavior Comparisons

As was the case with the economiccomparisons, an analysis of differencesbetween the three samples across the 16specified product attributes (see Table 2) doesreveal certain characteristics that make eachculture unique in terms of the product attributesemphasized over the ten year time span. Thedata obtained in the first study indicated that forconvenience goods (i.e., grocery products),Malaysian respondents were unique in that theyplaced higher levels of importance than didFrench or American consumers on serviceavailabilify/retum policy, attractive packaging/attractive appearance, safefy, and financingcredit. However, in the second studyMalaysian consumers placed significantlyhigher levels of importance on a singleconvenience good attribute - safefy/personalrisk - than did their French and Americancounterparts.

Malaysian consumers also differed fi^om theirFrench and American counterparts in theshopping product category (i.e., clothing) intheir emphasis on chemical fi-ee/organiccomponents, service availabilify/retum policy,number of features/product flexibility,recyclabilify, functional features, store image,and country-of-origin. As was the case forconvenience products, Malaysian consumersrated only one shopping product attribute -chemical free/organic components -significantly higher than in the French andAmerican respondents.

In the specialfy product category, Malaysianconsumers were distinct from French and U.S.consumers in the importance placed on cleanappearance, the organic nature of components,the product availability, recyclability,functional features, retailer image, and country-of-origin wdien buying an automobile. Theseoriginal results are in sharp contrast to thesecond study where Malaysian consumers didnot specifically identify any specialfy productattribute to be more significantly important thanthe responding French and Americanconsumers.

Based on the original study data, Frenchconsumers were characterized by placing arelatively lower level of importance on value/price for any of the goods - convenience,shopping, or specialfy. Additionally, Frenchconsumers appeared to be unique in the lowlevel of importance placed on productavailabilify for grocery or clothing products.This may have been a function of the wideavailabilify of these products in the Frenchmarket. Another explanation might be that theemphasis, at least at that point in time, on thesetypes of products in the French culture elevatedthe social significance of these products suchthat price/value comparisons were notconsidered important. TTiese results from theoriginal study were confirmed in the follow-upstudy. At the same time, for convenienceproducts, the second data set showed thatFrench consumers placed significantly higherlevels of importance on chemical free/organiccomponents, service availabilify, recyclabilify/environmentally fiiendly, and locally produced/country-of-origin product attributes.

American consumers were also unique in theemphasis they placed on certain productattributes within particular product categories.Originally, brand image and value/price wereboth significantly more important to Americanconsumers, when compared to Malaysian andFrench consumers, across all three productclassification categories. Further, whenclothing was considered, American consumerswere unique in the importance they placed onstore/retailer image. Product attributes relatedto automobiles were another area whereAmerican consumers were distinct fromMalaysian and French consumers. The U.S.respondents in the first study placedsignificantly higher levels of importance onproduct qualify, service availabilify/retumpolicy, value/price, number of features, andbrand image in considering the purchase of anautomobile perhaps reflecting the traditionalimportance placed on the automobile inAmerican culture (Halberstam 1986). In thesecond study, U.S. consumers did not indicateany product attributes to be significantly more



important across all three product categoriesthan did the Malaysian or French consumers.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this longitudinal study helpsprovide some basis for understanding andapplying the notion of a global (i.e., "thinkglobal, act local") marketing strategy as a firmmoves beyond its domestic market boiindariesand the ways the market environment, and byextension a firm's strategy, evolves over time.Clearly, the findings here show that theimportance placed on certain product attributesdo cut across economic and ctiltural differencesas reflected in the relatively high levels ofimportance placed on those attributes across thethree nations sampled over the ten year timeperiod. At the same time, the need to "actlocal" is revealed in the differences which wereidentified between the three samples. Bybreaking out these similarities and differencesalong product classification categories, it ispossible to gain some practical insight into howto apply the principle of global marketing over

time for firms whose product offering falls intoa partictilar product category by showing wiiichemphasized product attributes are more likelyto be longitudinally stable. Table 3 begins thisdiscussion by considering similarities anddifferences within the convenience productcategory over a ten year time frame.

The information presented in Table 3 suggeststhat certain product attributes lend themselvesbetter to a global strategy which positions andpromotes a convenience product in a similarfashion across a variefy of markets around theworld. Altematively, it could be suggested thatthose product attributes which do not fall intothe "global" category in Table 3 may not beconsistently emphasized in a variety of markets.This is evidenced by the data obtained in bothstudies which indicated some variation in theimportance of attributes, either significant orrelative, across the three nations sampled.What is particularly important for this study isthat the number of product attributes which fallinto the "global" category increased for allthree product types over the ten year time

TABLE3Attributes for Convenience Products

2000 vs. 2010Global Attributes

2000* Product Quality* Hygiene/Qean ^pearanceanee* Product Availability* Value/Price

2010* Product Quality•Hygiene/Clean Appear-

* Product Availability* Value/Price* Attractive Packaging/

Appearance* Usable Packaging/

Functional Features

Multi-Domestic Attributes2000

* Chemical Free/Organic Components(Malaysia; France)

* Service Availability (Malaysia)* Attractive Packaging/

Appearance (Malaysia)* Warranty/Guarantee

(Malaysia; France)* Number of Features/

Product Flexibility(Malaysia; France)

* Recyclability/Environmentally Friendly(Malaysia; France)

* Safety/Personal Risk (Malaysia)* Brand Image (United States)* Financing/Credit (Malaysia)* Locally Produced/

Country-of-Origin(Malaysia; France)

2010* Chemical Free/

Organic Components(France)

* Service Availability(France)

* Warranty/Guarantee(Malaysia; France)

* Number of Features/Product Flexibility(Malaysia; France)

* Recyclability/EnvironmentallyFriendly (France)

* Safety/PersonalRisk (Malaysia)

* Brand Image(United States;Malaysia)

* Financing/Credit(United States)• Locally Produced/Country-of-Origin(France)



period separating the two data sets. Thoseproduct attributes which appear wereemphasized consistently (i.e., are associatedwith a relatively high importance score basedon the 6-point scale used) in the conveniencecategory include: product qualify, hygiene/clean appearance, product availabilify, andvalue/price. In the second data set attractivepackaging/appearance and usable packaging/functional features were also added. For a firmwith a grocery/convenience product offeringthat is attempting to formulate, or improve, itsglobal product strategy these findings supportthe notion that consumers are becomingincreasingly "global" in the attributes they seekout even in low involvement, convenienceproducts. At the same time, the results showthat a vwde-range of other product attributesmay be important for maximizing success whena firm adopts a multi-domestic, or individualmarket strategy, but may not be the best choicefor building a global product strategy.

The information in Table 4 provides furthersupport for the notion that not all productattributes carry over from one economy toanother in the global marketplace but thenumbers are increasing over time.Interestingly, in the first study the same fourproduct attributes (i.e., product qualify,hygiene/clean appearance, product availability,and value/price) were consistently rated to be ofrelatively higher importance for shoppinggoods than other types of goods in each nationsampled. But another aspect of shopping goodscan also be seen. Product attributes which arefrequently emphasized by American firms inproduct positioning and promotional activitiesfor shopping goods, such as brand image, werenot universally valued. However, the seconddata set shows many of the attributes originallyclassified as multi-domestic moved into theglobal category. The emerging picture issignificant in terms of its implications for firmsmoving into the global marketplace. This study

TABLE 4Attributes for Shopping Attributes

2000 vs. 2010Global Attnbutes

2000* Product Quality• Hygiene/Clean Appearance• Product Availability* Value/Price

2010* Product Quality* Product Availability* Value/Price* Brand Image* Store Image/

Retailer Image* Finance/Credit* Service Availability/

Retum Policy* Product Availability


* Chemical Free/Organic Conqjonents(Malaysia)

* Service Availability/Retum Policy(Malaysia)

* Attractive Packaging/Attractive j^)pearance(Malaysia; IMted States)

* Product Availability(United States)

* Warranty/Guarantee(Malaysia; France)

* Number of Features/Product Flexibility (Malaysia)

* Recyclability/Environmentally Friendly(Malaysia)

* Usable Packaging/Functional Features (Malaysia)

* Safety/Personal Risk(Malaysia; France)

* Brand Image (United States)* Store Image/

Retailer Image (United States)* Financing/Credit (Malaysia)* Locally Produced/

Produd Origin (Malaysia; France)

2010* Chemical Free/

Organic Components(Malaysia)

* Attractive Packaging/Attractive Appearance(Malaysia; United States)

* Safety/Personal Risk(Malaysia; France)



provides empirical evidence that understandingthe nuances of a single market may not benecessary for creating a successfiil marketingstrategy in another market. For convenienceand shopping goods providers, the messageseems to be clear - a global strategy should befounded on the basics (e.g., quality, value,availability, etc.) which represent the "thinkglobal" component of a global strategy. At thesame time, other attributes play an importantrole for global consumers depending on theproduct typé. Fmther, these results appear tocarry over, with some modifications, tospecialty goods as well (see Table 5).

As was the case with convenience and shoppingproducts, the two universally important productattributes identified over time with specialtyproducts are product quality and value/price.This would seem to be consistent with thenature of specialty products, particularly theirinfi-equent purchase and the financialcommitment/risk associated with consumingthese products. The other universally accepted

attributes for this category also seem to supportthis perspective of consumers seeking tominimize the risk and commitment associatedwith consuming a specialty product, whatevertheir cultural or economic situation. Theseinclude: service availability/return policy,warranty/guarantee, safety/personal risk, andfinancing/credit. However, as was the casewith the previous product classificationcategories, attributes such as appearance, brandand store/retailer image, and features which arecommonly used to differentiate specialtyproducts but were not universally emphasizedas one moves fi-om market to market around theworld in the first data set were globallyemphasized in the second study.

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This study has attempted to address some oftheissues related to constructing an effectiveproduct strategy in the global marketplacetaking into account the possible impact ofmarket and consumer changes over time. The

2000* Produd Quality* Service Availability/

Retum Policy* Warranty/Guarantee* Value/Price* Safety/Personal Risk* Financing/Credit

TABLE 5Attributes for Specialty Products

2000 vs. 2010Global Attributes

2010* Product Quality* Service Availability/

Retum Policy* Warranty/Guarantee•Value/Price* Safety/Personal Risk* Financing/Credit* Brand Mage* Number of Features/

Pro(Juct Flexibility* Store Image/

Retailer Image* Product Available


* Hygiene/Clean Appearance(Malaysia)

* Chemical Free/Organic Conç)onents

Friendly(Malaysia)

* Attractive Packaging/Attractive j^pearance(Malaysia; United States)

States)* Product Availability ( Malaysia)* Number of Features/

Product Flexibility (United States)* Recyclability/

Envircjnmentally Friendly(Malaysia; France)

* Usable Packaging/Functional Features(Malaysia; United States)

* Brand Image (United States)* Store Image/

Retailer Image(Malaysia; France)

•LocaUy Produced/Product Origin (Malaysia; France^

2010* Attractive Packaging/

Attractive i^jpearance(Malaysia; United States)

* Recyclability/Environmentally

(Malaysia; France)* Usable Packaging/

Functional Features(Malaysia; United



results show that, in order to "think global", itmay be important to begin any productpositioning, differentiation, and promotionalactivities with the fundamentals of qualify,value, price, appearance, and availabilify.Based on the results obtained in thislongitudinal study, there appear to be anincreasing number of product attributes vààchare universally emphasized across markets.That would seem to indicate that in order tooptimize penetration in any given marketaround the world, the key success factor may bethe "thinking global" rather than the "act local"component of the global marketing approach.Effective positioning and differentiation appearto be increasingly more feasible using universalproduct attributes, particularly in the face ofsubstantial competition for customers in theglobal marketplace (White and Griffith 1997).Further, the data indicate that the fi-equentlyapplied positioning and differentiationtechniques used by U.S. firms may hold littlesway with consumers in some markets outsidethe United States. Thus, this study providessome empirical support for the "think global,act local" approach to global marketing strategyas well as giving some direction in terms ofwhat both "thinking global" and "acting local"might involve, especially in economicallydiverse markets.

In closing, it is important to note some of thekey limitations of this study. In doing so, thelimitations of this present study suggest futureresearch opportunities in the area of globalproduct strategy. While substantial effort wasexpended to obtain data fiom threeeconomically and culturally diverse marketsover a reasonably long period of time, it couldbe argued that additional national samplesmight be necessary before any definitiveconclusions can be drawn regarding globallyuniversal product attributes. Similarly,although the sixteen specified product attributeswere anchored in a comprehensive synthesis ofexisting published literature, it may be arguedthat a more comprehensive listing of productattributes would provide better insights. Alongthe same lines, explication of each of theattributes (e.g., aspects of product qualify) in a

global context would represent an area of futureresearch suggested by, but not addressed, in thisstudy. Finally, another potentially fiaiitfiil areaof future research implicit in this study wouldbe to examine the stabilify of the identifiedproduct attributes in each product categorygiven specific changes in the marketenvironment faced by individual consumers indifferent markets.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. and K. Keller (1990), "ConsumerEvaluations of Brand Extensions", Joumal ofMarketing, Vol. 54, No.l, pp. 27-42.

Aaker, J., V. Benet-Martinez and J. Garolera(2001), "Consumption Symbols as Carriers ofCulture: A Study of Japanese and SpanishBrand Personalify Constmcts", Joumal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81,No. 3, pp. 492-508.

and D. Maheswaran, (1997), "TheEffect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion",Joumal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24,No. 1, pp. 315-328.

Aliman, N. and M.Othman (2007), "PurchasingLocal and Foreign Brands: What ProductAttributes Matter?", Proceedings of the 13*^Asia Pacific Management Conference,Vol.13, pp. 400-411.

Biel, A. (1992), "How Brand Image DrivesBrand Equify", Joumal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 6-12.

Bloch, P. and M. Richins (1983), "ATheoretical Model for the Study of ProductImportance Perceptions", Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 69-81.

Breivik, E. and M. Supphellen (2003),"Elicitation of Product Attributes in anEvaluation Context: A Comparison of ThreeElicitation Techniques", Joumal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 24, pp. 77-98.

Bush, A. and J. Hair (1985), "An Assessmentof the Mall Intercept as a Data CollectionMethod", Joumal of Marketing Research,Vol. 22, No.2, pp. 158-167.

Chandler, R. and G. Dmcker (1993), "YouCan't Live by Brand Alone: MakingSomething Old Look New", Public RelationsQuarterly, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 36-38.



Collins-Dodd, C. and T. Lindley (2003), "StoreBrands and Retail Differtiation: TheInfluence of Store Image and Store BrandAttitude on Store Own Brand Perceptions",Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,Vol. 10, pp. 345-352.

Cronbach, L. (1951), "Coefficient Alpha andthe Internal Structure of Tests",Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 297-334.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and J. Munuera-Aleman(2001), "Brand Trust in the Context ofConsumer Loyalfy", European Journal ofMarketing,Vol. 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.

Douglas, S. and C. Craig (1983), IntemationalMarketing Research, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Feenstra, R. and J. Levinsohn (1995),"Estimating Markups and Market Conductwith Multidimensional Product Attributes",Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 62,pp. 19-53.

Felhnan, M. (1998), "Not so Fast: U.S. Biz StillWaits for Africa Marketing Options",Marketing News, Vol. 32, No.l, p. 13.

Halberstam, D. (1986), The Reckoning, NewYork: William Morrow and Company.

Han, C , B. Lee and K. Ro (1994), "The Choiceof a Survey Mode in Country Image Studies",Journal of Business Research, Vol 29,pp. 151-162.

Han, S. and S. Shavitt (1994), "Persuasion andCulture: Advertising Appeals inIndividualistic and CoUectivistic Societies",Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,Vol. 30, pp. 326-350.

Jacoby, J., J. Olson and R. Haddock (1971),"Price, Brand Name, and ProductComposition Characteristics as Determinantsof Perceived Qualify", Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 570-579.

Jain, S. (1989), "Standardization ofIntemational Marketing Strategy: SomeResearch Hypotheses", Joumai of Marketing,Vol. 53, No.l, pp. 70-79.

Kalyanaram, G. and V. Krishnan (1997),"Deliberate Product Definition: Customizingthe Product Definition Process", Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol.39, pp. 276-285.

Keillor, B.D., D. Hausknecht and R. S. Parker(2001), "Thinking Global, Acting Local: AnAttribute Approach to Product Strategy",Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 10, No. 2,pp. 27-48.

Kishii, T. (1994), "Insider- and Outsider-Oriented Advertising: The DifferenceBetween Japanese and Westem Advertising",In Yasumichi Yamaguchi (Ed.) Japan 1994Marketing and Advertising Yearbook, Tokyo:Dentsu, Inc.

Klein, G., R. Ettenson and M. Morris (1998),"The Animosify Model of Foreign ProductPurchase: An Empirical Test in the People'sRepublic of China", Journal of Marketing,Vol. 62, No.l, pp. 89-100.

Lin, C. (1993), "Cultural Differences inMessage Strategies: A Comparison BetweenAmerican and Japanese TV Commercials",Journal of Advertising Research, (July/August), pp. 40-48.

MacMülan, I. and R. McGrath (1996),"Discover Your Product's Hidden Potential",Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, pp. 58-68.

Marsh, C. and E. Scarbrough (1990), "TestingNine Hypotheses about Quota Sampling",Journal of the Marketing Research Society,Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 485-506.

McGuiness, N. and B. Little (1981), "TheInfluence of Product Characteristics on theExport Performance of New IndustrialProducts", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45,No. 2, pp. 110-122.

Meyer-Waarden, L. (2006), "The Influence ofLoyalty Programme Membership onConsumer Purchase Behavior", EuropeanJoumai of Marketing, Vol.42, Nos. 1/2,pp. 87-114.

Nowell, C. and L. Stanley (1991), "Length-Biased Sampling in Mall Intercept Surveys",Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.28,No. 4, pp. 475-479.

Nunnaly, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2"^Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Phillips, L., D. Chang and R. Buzzell (1983),"Product Qualify, Cost Position and BusinessPerformance: A Test of Some KeyHypotheses", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47,No. 2, pp. 26-43.



Posten, B. (1996), "A Global MarketingPrimer", Brandweek, Vol.37(April), p. 18.

Rat t ippant , N. , S. Supradi t , P.Viriyasirimongkol and K. Sktüareemit(2009), "Evaluation of the CustomerRelationship Management Programs ofGrocery Stores in Thailand," World Academyof Science, Engineering, and Technology,Vol. 53, pp. 1242-1249.

Rogers, E. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations,New York: The Free Press.

Runmiel, R. (1967), "Understanding FactorAnalysis", Joumal of Conflict Resolution,Vol.11, pp. 444-480.

Samiee, S. and K. Roth (1992), "The Influenceof Global Marketing Standardization onPerformance", Joumal of Marketing,Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 1-17.

Seniga, J., A. Riel and A. Ambrosini (2003),"Consumer Evaluations of Store Brands:Effects of Store Image and ProductAttributes", Joumal of Retailing andConsumer Services, Vol.11, pp. 247-258.

Smith, D. (1992), "Brand Extensions andAdvertising Efficiency: What Can andCannot be Expected", Joumal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 32(November), pp. 11-21.

Spreng, R., S. MacKenzie and R. Olshavsky(1996), "A Reexamination of theDeterminants of Consumer Satisfaction",Joumal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 2,pp. 15-32.

Srinivasan, V. and C. Park (1997), "SurprisingRobtistness of the Self-Explicated Approachto Customer Preference StructureMeasurement", Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 39, pp. 286-291.

Sudman, S. (1980), "Improving the Quality ofShopping Center Survey Sampling, Joumalof Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 423-431.

Takada, H. and D. Jain (1991), "Cross-NationalAnalysis of Difñision of Consumer DurableGoods in Pacific Rim Covmtries", Joumal ofMarketing, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 48-54.

Ueno, K. (1995), "From Product-OrientedDevelopment to Technology-OrientedDevelopment", IEEE Transactions onReliability, Vol. 44(June), pp. 220-225.

Valette-Florence, P. and B. Rapacchi (1991),"Improvements in Means-End AnalysisUsing Graph Theory and CorrespondenceAnalysis", Joumal of Advertising Research,Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 30-46.

Wang, C. and Z. Chen (2004), "ConsumerEthnocentrism and Willingness to BuyDomestic Products in a Developing CountrySetting: Testing Moderating Effects", Joumalof Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 6,pp. 391-400.

White, S. and D. Griffith (1997), "CombiningCorporate and Marketing Strategies forGlobal Competitiveness", MarketingIntelligence and Planning, Vol. 15,pp. 173-178.

Wills, J., A. Samli and L. Jacobs (1991),"Developing Global Products and MarketingStrategies: A Constmct and ResearchAgenda", Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, No\. 19, pp. 1-10.

(1990), "Cognitive and AffectivePriming Effects of the Context for PrintAdvertisements", Joumal of Advertising,Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 40-49.

Yi, Y. and H. Jeon (2003), "Effects of LoyalfyPrograms on Value Perception, ProgramLoyalty, and Brand Loyalfy", Joumal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31,No. 3, pp. 229-240.

(1990), "A Critical Review ofConsumer Satisfaction", In Valerie Zeithaml,(Ed.) Review of Marketing, Chicago,American Marketing Association, pp. 68-123.

Yoo, B. and N. Donthu (2002), "Testing Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Brand EquifyCreation Process", Joumal of Product andBrand Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, 380-398.

Zeithaml, V. (1998), "Consumer Perceptions ofPrice, Qtiality, and Value: A Means-EndModel and Synthesis of Evidence", Joumalof Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 2-22.


Copyright of Marketing Management Journal is the property of Marketing Management Journal and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

global product strategy: a longitudinal multi … · attributes, the relationship between product...

Documents