The study evaluated the consumer perceptions towards Rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis) as a premier furniture material. The data for this study was collected from a questionnaire survey, completed by 250 buyers who attended the international furniture fairs in Malaysia. Correlation analysis showed that the success factors of Rubberwood as a furniture stock are primarily its low cost and ample availability. According to 82% of the respondents, the three major advantages of Rubberwood as a furniture stock in comparison to other furniture wood species are its lower cost, environmental friendliness and workability. Inadvertently, Rubberwood furniture is also plagued by the perception of being low-cost.
Anon. 2006. Outlook of the Malaysian furniture sector. IFRG Report No. 03/2006
2.
BALSIGERJ., BAHDANJ. and WHITEMANA. 2000. The Utilization, Processing and Demand for Rubberwood as a source of Wood Supply. APFC-Working Paper No. APF SO S/WP/50.
3.
BENNINGTONR. R. 1996. Furniture Marketing.2nd; Edition.Fairchild Pub.New York.
4.
BUEHLMANNU. and SCHULERA. 2002. Benchmarking the wood household furniture industry: A basis for identifying competitive business strategies for today's global economy. Pages 122–128 in Proceedings of the NHLA 30th Annual hardwood Symposium, 30 May, TN.
5.
BUMGARDNERM. S. and BOWES. A. 2002. Species selection in secondary wood products: Implications for product design and promotion. Wood Fiber Science: 34(3): 408–418.
6.
COOPERR. G. 1991. Winning at New Products. 5th Edition. Addison-Wesley Pub. Mass.
7.
HAIRJ. F., ANDERSONR. E., TATHAMR. L. and BLACKW. C. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis. 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
8.
HONGL. T. and SIMH. C. 1999. Rubberwood - Processing and Utlization. Malayan Forest Record No. 39, Forest Research Institute of Malaysia.
9.
LEVITTT. 1980. Marketing success through differentiation. Harvard Business Review: 58(1): 83–91.
10.
OZANEL. K. and SMITHP. M. 1996. Consumer segments for environmentally marketed wood household furniture. Wood and Fiber Science: 28(4): 461–477.
11.
RATNASINGAMJ., REIDH. F. and PERKINSM. 1997. Furniture Industry: Regaining the Competitive Edge.J. of the Institute of Wood Science: 14(3): 115–120.
12.
RATNASINGAMJ. and HWANGC. 1999. Furniture Marketing - Is the price a concern? Wood Southern Africa:24(7): 72–74.
13.
RATNASINGAMJ. 2000a. Furniture Marketing: Is it a matter of Fashion? Asian Timber:19(5): 28–31.
14.
RATNASINGAMJ. 2000b. Rubberwood Supply in Malaysia. Asian Timber: 19(9): 16–19.
15.
RATNASINGAMJ. 2001. Asian Furniture Fairs: What's on sale? FDM Asia:13(3): 31–35.
16.
RATNASINGAMJ. 2003. A matter of design in the South East Asian wooden furniture industry. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff: 61: 151–154.
17.
RATNASINGAMJ. and brasF.2003. The Sustainability of the Asian Wooden Furniture Industry. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff: 61: 233–237.
18.
RATNASINGAMJ. 2004a. Statis Fairs as a Furniture Marketing Tool. Asian Timber: 23(2): 28–29.
19.
RATNASINGAMJ. 2004b. Economic of the Rubberwood Processing Industry - A South East Asian Perspective. Asian Timber: 23(2): 16–18.
