成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	徐鵬翔 Hsu, Peng-Hsiang
論文名稱：	From Simple to Compound: How Firms' Relationships Influence Brand Evaluation in Smartphone Market From Simple to Compound: How Firms' Relationships Influence Brand Evaluation in Smartphone Market
指導教授：	高如妃 Kao, Faye J.
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	管理學院 - 國際經營管理研究所碩士在職專班 Institute of International Management (IIMBA--Master)(on the job class)
論文出版年：	2017
畢業學年度：	105
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	103
中文關鍵詞：	複合關係、單一關係、主導關係、企業關係、品牌品質、品牌態度、品牌信譽、品牌自我連結
外文關鍵詞：	Compound relationship, Simple relationship, Dominant relationship, Corporate relationship, Brand quality, Brand attitude, Brand credibility, Self-brand connection
相關次數：	點閱：162 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

此研究以單一實驗調查企業關係中複合關係及主導關係對消費者品牌評估之影響。研究發現複合關係對於一對相互有複合關係的主要品牌及次要品牌之品牌評估，相較於兩品牌間的單一關係有更為正面而顯著的影響。此外，合作主導關係對於主要品牌的品牌評估有直接而正面的影響。反之，競爭主導關係在複合關係的存在下，有助提升次要品牌的評估。最後，次要品牌的品牌信譽評估在競爭主導關係相對於合作主導關係下，會明顯降低。
此研究僅提供台灣企業在公司戰略層級不同角度思考。過去代工模式 (OEM)長久來為台灣工業提供成長動能，台灣的製造商多半只專注在供應者與客戶的關係。近二十年來有越來越多台灣品牌在國際市場嶄露頭角，而全球供應鏈與全球競爭的交互關係也愈發密切。在競爭關係，合作關係，及競合關係同時存在的環境下，企業不該只專注在單一角色。此研究將闡述即證明複合關係的重要性，並提供研究結果作為企業的參考。

This study uses one experimental design to investigate the effects of compound relationship and dominant relationship on consumers’ brand evaluations. The results found that compound relationship increases primary brands’ evaluation more than simple relationships. Besides, cooperative dominant relationship benefits primary brands’ evaluation. Finally, secondary brands tend to have lower perceived credibility under competitive dominant relationship.
This study may provide emerging brands a different aspect of considering corporate level strategies. In the past, OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) was the basis of growing for Taiwanese industries. Taiwanese manufacturers are mostly concerned with simple relationship as supplier-customer roles. Till recent 2 decades there are more and more Taiwanese brands stepping in the global market and got certain success. Global supply chain cooperation has been closer each day. Global cooperation and competition also has become interactive. Firms should not be concerned with only one simple role with the partner firm while they are actually having multiple-role compound relationship. This study also discusses the importance and proven results for why compound relationship should be taken into considerations by firms.

ABSTRACT	I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	II
TABLE OF CONTENTS	III
LIST OF TABLES	IX
LIST OF FIGURES	XI
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION	1
1.1	Research Background and Motivation.	1
1.1.1 Opportunities and Challenges for Taiwanese Industries.	1
Figure 1-1. Smiling curve theory	2
1.1.2 The Reinvention of Mobile Phone.	3
1.1.3 The Smartphone Market Size and Players.	4
Figure 1-2. Global smartphone shipments growth and forecast	5
Table 1-1 Global Smartphone Brands Market Share	5
1.1.4 The Smartphone Industry Global Supply Chain and Consumer Market.	6
1.2 The Global Competition, Cooperation, and Coopetition in Smartphone Industry.	7
1.2.1 Global Competition in Smartphone Market: Apple and Samsung.	7
Figure 1-3. Mobile phone vendor’s market share in sold units to end users worldwide 2000 vs. 2012	12
1.2.2 Global Cooperation – Google and HTC.	12
1.2.3 Competition and Cooperation Simultaneously: Coopetition.	14
1.3 Research Objectives.	15
1.4 Research Structure.	16
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW	17
2.1 Corporate Relationships.	17
2.1.1 Simple Relationship.	18
Table 2-1 Types and Definitions of Simple Relationships	19
2.1.2 Compound Relationship.	21
Figure 2-1. Patterns of component relationships	22
Figure 2-2. Connected relations for firms in a dyadic relationship	23
2.1.3 Dominant Relationship.	24
2.2 Consumer as an Operant Resource.	25
2.3 Consumer’s Brand Evaluations.	26
2.3.1 Brand Credibility.	27
2.3.2 Brand Quality.	27
2.3.3 Brand Attitude.	28
2.3.4 Self-Brand Connection.	29
2.4 Hypothesis Development.	30
2.4.1 Compound Relationship on Primary Brand.	30
2.4.2 Compound Relationship on Secondary Brand.	34
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY	38
3.1 Conceptual Framework.	38
Figure 3-1. Conceptual framework	39
3.2 Experimental Design.	39
3.2.1 Three Corporate Relationship Manipulations.	39
3.2.2 Two Dominate Relationship Manipulation.	41
3.2.3 Dependent Variables.	44
Table 3-1 Dependent Valuables – Brand Evaluation	45
Table 3-2 Experimental Design Sample Size	45
3.3 Pretest: Corporate Relationship Manipulations Design.	45
Table 3-3 Interviewees’ Professional Background	46
3.3.1 The Competitive Dominant Relationship Manipulation and 3 Corporate Relationships - Apple and Samsung.	47
3.3.2 The Cooperative Dominant Relationship Manipulation and 3 Corporate Relationship Manipulations – Google and HTC.	48
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH RESULT	50
4.1 Data Collection.	50
Table 4-1 Sampling Distribution	51
Table 4-2 Sampling Profile	51
4.2 Corporate Relationship Manipulation Check.	53
Table 4-3 Corporate Relationships Manipulation Check – Apple-Samsung	54
Table 4-4 Corporate Relationships Manipulation Check – Google-HTC	54
4.3 Dominate Relationship Manipulation Check.	55
Table 4-5 Dominant Relationship Manipulations Check - 1	55
Table 4-6 Dominant Relationship Manipulations Check - 2	56
4.4 Ordering Effect Test.	56
Table 4-7 Result of Ordering – Google Brand Quality	57
Table 4-8 Result of Ordering Effect – Google Brand Attitude	57
Table 4-9 Result of Ordering – Google Brand Credibility	58
4.5 Dependent Variable Scale Reliability.	59
Table 4-10 Result of Dependent Valuables Reliability Test	59
4.6 Analysis 1: Effect of Corporate Relationships and Dominant Relationship on Consumers’ Brand Evaluations of Primary Brands.	60
4.6.1 Primary Brand Quality Evaluation.	60
Table 4-11 Result of Dominant Relationship Effect – Primary Brand Quality	61
Table 4-12 Contrast Results: Simple Relationships vs. Compound Relationship – Primary Brand Quality	61
4.6.2 Primary Brand Attitude Evaluation.	62
Table 4-13 Contrast Results: Simple Relationships vs. Compound Relationship – Primary Brand Attitude	62
Table 4-14 Result of Dominant Relationship Effect – Primary Brand Attitude	63
4.6.3 Primary Brand Credibility Evaluation.	64
Table 4-15 Result of Dominant Relationship Effect – Primary Brand Credibility	64
4.6.4 Primary Self-Brand Connection Evaluation.	65
Table 4-16 Result of Dominant Relationship Effect – Self-Brand Connection of Primary Brand	65
4.7 Analysis 2: Effect of Corporate Relationships and Dominant Relationship on Consumers’ Brand Evaluations of Secondary Brands.	66
4.7.1 Secondary Brand Quality Evaluation.	66
Table 4-17 Result of Dominant Relationship Effect – Secondary Brand Quality	67
4.7.2 Secondary Brand Attitude Evaluation.	67
Table 4-18 Mean Values of Dominant Relationships – Secondary Brand Attitude	68
Table 4-19 Moderating Effect of Dominant Competitive Relationship – Secondary Brand Attitude	69
4.7.3 Secondary Brand Credibility Evaluation.	69
4.7.4 Secondary Self-Brand Connection Evaluation.	70
Table 4-20 Contrast Results: Cooperative Relationship vs. Compound Relationship – Self-Brand Connection of Secondary Brand	70
Table 4-21 Result of Dominant Relationship Effect – Self-Brand Connection of Secondary Brands	71
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS	72
5.1 Research Summary and Conclusion.	72
Table 5-1 Summary Table of Experimental Results.	72
5.2 Theoretical Implications and Contributions.	74
5.3 Managerial Implications.	75
5.4 Research Limitation and Suggestions.	77
REFERENCES	79
APPENDICES	82
Appendix 1: Results of Ordering Effects	82
Apple Brand Quality	82
Apple Brand Attitude	83
Apple Brand Credibility	84
Apple Self-Brand Connection	85
Samsung Brand Attitude	86
Samsung Brand Quality	87
Samsung Credibility	88
Samsung Self-Brand Connection	89
HTC Brand Quality	89
HTC Brand Attidue	90
HTC Brand Credibility	90
HTC Self-Brand Connection	91
Appendix 2: Corporate Relationship Manipulation Check – Apple-Samsung	91
Competitive Simple Relationship Manipulation Check (Open Question) – Apple-Samsung	91
Cooperative Simple Relationship Manipulation Check (Open Question) – Apple-Samsung	93
Coopetition Simple Relationship Manipulation Check (Open Question) – Apple-Samsung	95
Appendix 3: Corporate Relationship Manipulation Check – Google-HTC	97
Competitive Simple Relationship Manipulation Check (Open Question) – Google-HTC	97
Cooperative Simple Relationship Manipulation Check (Open Question) – Google-HTC	99
Coopetition Simple Relationship Manipulation Check (Open Question) – Google-HTC	101
                                    

Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(0), 45-57.
Anderson, J. C., Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994). Dyadic business relationship within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 1-15.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-In by history events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
Barone, M. J., & Jewell, R. D. (2013). The innovator’s license: A latitude to deviate from category norms. Journal of Marketing, 77(0), 120-134.
Berger, J., Zelditch, M., & Anderson, B. (1989). Sociological theories in progress: New formulations (1 ed. Vol. 3). Newbury Park, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bliois, K. J. (1970). The effect of subjective factors on customer/supplier relations in industrial. European Journal of Marketing, 4(1), 18-21.
Carpenter, S. (2016, Oct. 6). Google Pixel phones could be a secret windfall for HTC. Forbes.
Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2005). The development of self-brand connections in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 119-129.
Chen, C. L. J., & Belcher, S. M. (2010). The importance of absorptive capacity in the road to becoming a “giant lion” - ASUSTek Computer Inc. Global Economic Review, 39(3), 291-315.
Chou, H.-Y., & Wang, T.-Y. (2017). Hypermarket private-lable products, brand strategies and spokesperson persuasion. European Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 759-820.
Constaintin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding resource management: How to deploy your people, products, and processes for maximum productivity. Oxford, OH: Planning Forum.
Day, G. S., & Reibstein, D. J. (1997). Wharton on dynamic competitive strategy (Vol. 0). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1998). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(0), 1-20.
Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a general theory of competitive rationality. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 69-83.
Erdem, T., Keane, M. P., & Sun, B. (2008). A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality. Marketing Science, 27(6), 1111-1125.
Erdogmus, I. E., & Yilmaz, M. B. a. C. (2010). International strategies of emerging market firms: Standardization in brand management revisited. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1410-1436.
Escalas, J. E. (2003). You are what they eat: the influence of reference group on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339-348.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 168-180.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research (Vol. 0). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Frazier, G. L., & Lassar, W. M. (1996). Determinants of distribution intensity. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 39-51.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – exploring antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324-348.
Guo, L., & Zhao, Y. (2009). Voluntary quality disclosure and market interaction. Marketing Science, 28(3), 488-501.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1-15.
Johnson, M. D., & Selnes, F. (2004). Customer portfolio management: Toward a dynamic theory of exchange relationships. Journal of Marketing, 68(0), 1-17.
Johnston, R., & Lawrence, P. R. (1988). Beyond vertical integration—The rise of the value-adding partnership. Harvard Business Review, 88(0), 94-101.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96-108.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H. (2012). Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: A study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 922-937.
Mckitterick, W. (2016). The smartphone market by country: Business Insider Inc.
Michell, A. (2010). Samsung electronics and the struggle for leadership of the electronics industry (1 ed.). Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-332.
Mitra, D., & Golder, P. N. (2006). How does objective quality affect perceived quality? Short-term effects, long-term effects, and asymmetries. Marketing Science, 25(3), 230-247.
Morhart, F., Malar, L., Guevrement, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2014). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200-218.
Mudambi, R. (2008). Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 699-725.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(0), 1090-1098.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand at titude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical band equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(0), 1-17.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. London: Basil Blakwell and Mott.
Pettey, C., & Forni, A. A. (2017). Gartner says 2016 marked fifth consecutive year of worldwide PC shipment decline [Press release]
Pollack, A. (1995, Jul. 21). Koreans seen buying more U.S. concerns. The New York Times.
Ross, W. T., & Robertson, D. C. (2007). Compound relationships between firms. Journal of Marketing, 71(0), 108-123.
Rust, R. (1998). What Is the domain of service research. Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 107.
Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., & Keiningham, T. L. (1995). Return on quality (ROQ): Making service quality financially accountable. Journal of Marketing, 59(0), 58-70.
Shih, S. (2012). 微笑走出自己的路：施振榮的Smile學，20堂創業、創新、人生課 (1 ed.). Taipei: 遠見天下文化出版股份有限公司.
Shimp, T. A. (2010). Advertising, promotion, & other aspects of integrated marketing communications (8 ed.). Manson, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Starr, M. K., & Rubinson, J. R. (1978). A loyalty group segmentation model for brand purchasing simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 378-383.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53-65.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(0), 1-17.
Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 36-51.
Wuyts, S., Dutta, S., & Stremersch, S. (2004). Portfolios of interfirm agreements in technology - Intensive markets: consequences for innovation and profitability. Journal of Marketing, 68(0), 88-100.
Zimmermann, E. W. (1951). World resources and industries. New York: Harper and Raw.
張殿文. (2005). 虎與狐：郭台銘的全球競爭策略. Taipei: 天下遠見出版股份有限公司.
陳致中. (2004, Feb.). 宏碁「微笑曲線」. 遠見雜誌, 212.
黃奕筠. (2011, Apr. 28). 彰濱生活產業聚落搶單國際. Common Wealth, 361.

校內：2022-05-11公開
校外：2022-05-11公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文