The Role of Consumer Knowledge Dimensions on Country of Origin Effects: An Enquiry of Fast-consuming Product in India

Abstract

Purpose:

The main purpose of this study is to extend the arguments of Phau and Suntornnond’s (2006) paper which has used Schaefer’s (1997) paper in investigating the different dimensions of consumer knowledge and its affect on country of origin (COO) cues for low involvement product purchases. The arguments of Melnyk et al. (2012) and Chernev (2004), which state that when a product is utilitarian, consumers attach greater weight to individual product attributes and less weight to COO cues was also tested.

Design:

The sample consists of consumers (Indian) who are aged 18 and above who may or may not be alcoholic drinkers. The sample size is 300.

Findings:

The hypothesis (H1) which states that, when only brand name and COO are available as information cues, consumers rely more on COO if the brand name is unfamiliar than if it is familiar (will have low correlation), is partially accepted (only for German brand) with mixed results for other brands. The results were similar to Schaefer’s (1997) and Phau and Suntornnond’s (2006). The explanation is as follows: Sometimes, consumers who are familiar with a brand are more willing to allow COO cues in their evaluation process as per the contention of Johansson (1989); and thus leading to strong correlations which goes against the hypothesis of Baker et al. (2002); Punj and Staelin (1983), leading to a partial acceptance.

As per H2, for consumers who have experienced the brand, the COO cues are less important and hence the correlation between COO cue and experience will be lower. This is true only for the brand from Denmark. In a situation that an individual has tried a specific brand (experienced the brand Carlsberg) originating from Denmark and built a relationship with the brand, the consumer tends to reach product judgement quickly without much attempts of external search like the COO cues. In the case of German brand Becks, the experienced consumers are having higher correlation to COO cues, because of the preference towards Made in Germany products and that Made in Germany cue influencing the experienced consumers who would find it a matter of prestige to associate with the brand. For the Indian Brand Kingfisher, the immense popularity of Kingfisher brand arising due to the active promotions of the brand for many years has made the experienced customers rate it very high over COO brand India. Also it is seen that the consumers without experience of the Kingfisher brand rate it very high to brand India due to its better image thereby manipulating the relationship with COO cues. The overall results were similar to Phau and Suntornnond (2006) with mixed outcomes.

As per H3 for unfamiliar brands, consumers with high product-country knowledge (high Knowledge) will rely on COO cue thus leading to strong correlations than for low knowledge consumers. The hypothesis is rejected for all the three brands. When brand itself is unfamiliar it is difficult for consumers to internalize the quality of the product. This may confuse the consumers, affecting their ability to judge an unknown brand based on quality, value and acceptability in spite of consumer’s knowledge about the product brand COO. The consumers may not use COO cue (Blackwell et al., 2001). The results were mixed and similar to Phau and Suntornnond (2006), when considering the arguments for familiar brands in the given context.

Originality/value:

This study helps in understanding the emerging country (Indian) perspective for the relationship between consumer knowledge dimensions and its impact on COO cues, for fast consuming products thereby contributing to external setting validity.

Keywords

Brand Familiarity Product-country Knowledge Utilitarian Product COO Cue

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alba

J. W.

Hutchinson

W. J.

(1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. The Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.

Baker

Hunt

J. B.

Scribner

L. L.

(2002). The effect of introducing a new brand on consumer perceptions of current brand similarity: The roles of product knowledge and involvement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 45–57.

Bilkey

W. J.

Nes

(1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(Spring/Summer), 89–99.

Blackwell

R. D.

Miniard

P. W.

Engel

J. F.

(2001). Consumer behaviour (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, Division of Thomson Learning.

Chernev

(2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1–2), 141–150.

Chiou

J. S.

(2003). The impact of country of origin on pre-trial and post trial product evaluations: The moderating effect of customer expertise. Psychology and Marketing, 20(10), 935–954.

Cordell

V. V.

(1997). Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in product evaluation. Psychology and Marketing, 14(3), 241–260.

Donadio

(2010). Chinese remake the Made in Italy, fashion label. New York Times. Retrieved 30 January 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/wprld/europe/13prato.html.

Han

C. M.

(1989). Country image: Halo or summary construct? Journal of Marketing Research, 26(May), 222–229.

10.

Han

M. C.

Qualls

W. J.

(1985). Country-of-Origin effects and their impact upon consumers’ perception of quality. In Tan

C. T.

Sheth

(Eds), Historical perspectives in consumer research: National and international perspectives (pp. 162–167). Singapore: Association for Consumer Research, School of Management, University of Singapore.

11.

Johansson

J. K.

(1989). Determinants and effects of the use of ‘made in’ labels. International Marketing Review, 6(1), 47–58.

12.

Maheswaran

(1994). Country of origin as a stereotype: Effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 354–365.

13.

Melnyk

Klien

Volckner

(2012). The double-edged sword of foreign brand names for companies from emerging countries. Journal of Marketing, 76(November), 21–37.

14.

Miller

J. W.

(2011). Country labeling set offs EU debate. The Wall Street Journal (June 6). Retrieved 30 January 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704062604576105691622922576.html

15.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

16.

Phau

Suntornnond

(2006). Dimensions of consumer knowledge and its impact on country of origin effects among Australian consumers: A case of fast-consuming product. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 34–42.

17.

Punj

G. N.

Staelin

(1983). A model of consumer search behaviour for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 366–380.

18.

Samiee

(1994). Customer evaluation of products in a global market. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3), 579–604.

19.

Samli

A. C.

(1995). International consumer behaviour: Its impact on marketing strategy development. New York, NY: Quorum Books.

20.

Schaefer

(1997). Consumer knowledge and country-of-origin effects. European Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 56–72.

21.

Wang

Lamb

(1983). The impact of selected environmental forces upon consumers’ willingness to buy foreign products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 11(2), 71–84.

22.

WTO (2011). Participation of developing economies in the global trading system. Retrieved 30 January 2014, from http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_e.htm

23.

Zhou

Yang

Hui

M. K.

(2010). Non-local or local brands? A multi-level investigation into confidence in brand origin identification and its strategic implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 202–218.