Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0815111-212417 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0815111-212417
論文名稱
Title
品牌間契合程度、廣告焦點和消費者享樂性購物動機對 共品牌產品評價之影響
Influences of Between-Partner Congruity, Ad Focus and Consumer Hedonic Shopping Motivation on Evaluation of Co-branded Product
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
128
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2011-07-26
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2011-08-15
關鍵字
Keywords
共品牌、享樂性購物動機、廣告焦點、夥伴間契合度
hedonic shopping motivation, between-partner congruity, ad focus, co-branding
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5904 次,被下載 3027
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5904 times, has been downloaded 3027 times.
中文摘要
品牌不但是企業最有價值的資產,同時間也是企業行銷的有力工具,結合多個品牌的共品牌策略,不但可以為企業帶來實質的商業利益,就長遠的角度而言更可以為企業帶來持久的競爭優勢。在共品牌策略的探討中,夥伴間契合度被認為是後續研究中重要的變數,而契合度與共品牌產品評價之間的關係,學術界存在著線性關係以及倒 U 型兩種觀點。奠基於兩種觀點的研究成果,本研究結合享樂性購物動機以及廣告焦點,探討消費者是如何對不同契合度的品牌組合做出共品牌產品之評價。
本研究以實驗設計法進行,夥伴間契合度(高、中、低)、享樂性購物動機(高vs.低)與廣告焦點(產品 vs.品牌)三項自變數,為 3x2x2 三因子設計,透過虛擬的共品牌手機廣告建立六種不同的實驗情境,同時藉由中位數法區分出享樂性購物動機高與低的受訪者,觀察消費者在不同情境下對共品牌產品廣告展現的購買意圖、產品態度以及品質知覺。
研究結果指出,當產品做為廣告焦點時,夥伴間契合度對於共品牌產品評價呈現線性影響,以品牌為廣告焦點時夥伴間契合度影響變小;此外對低享樂性購物動機的消費者而言,夥伴間契合度與共品牌產品評價亦同樣呈現線性關係,而對於高享樂性購動動機的消費者,使用品牌為廣告焦點,可以提升中度夥伴間契合度之共品牌產品在購買意圖以及品質知覺上之評價。綜合以上研究發現,廣告焦點可加強或改變夥伴間契合度之影響,選擇適當的廣告焦點以達到較佳的共品牌產品評價是很重要的。
Abstract
“Brand” is not only the most valuable asset, but also a powerful marketing tool for the enterprises. As progressing of marketing management, co-branding strategy which combines two brand partners can bring profits and sustainable competitive advantages to the corporate enterprises. Between-partner congruity (BPC) has been identified as an influential factor in the success of a co-branding strategy, and there are two mainstreams of research in co-branding strategy exist: (1) linear relationship between BPC and co-brand evaluation or (2) reverse-U curve relationship between BPC and co-brand evaluation. Based on such inconsistent findings, this study explores how hedonic shopping motivation and ad focus affect consumers’ evaluation toward the co-branded product through different levels of BPC.
The present study employs an experimental design to investigate the effects of BPC (high vs. moderate vs. low), ad focus(product vs. brand), and hedonic shopping
motivation (high vs. low) on consumers’ evaluation of co-branded product. A 3x2x2 factorial design is conducted. Six different scenarios are established through virtual
co-branded cell phone advertisement. Median split is used to distinguish consumers into high and low hedonic shopping motivation. Consumers’ evaluation is measured
by purchase intention, attitude toward the co-branded product, and perceived quality.
The results indicated that when the ad focus is product, there is a linear relationship between BPC and consumers’ evaluation. However, when the ad focus
is brand, the aforementioned relationship becomes weaker. The linear relationship is robust for those consumers with low hedonic shopping motivation. On the other hand, when the ad focus is brand, moderate BPC would lead to higher purchase intention and quality perception for consumers with high hedonic shopping
motivation. Based on the above findings, influences of ad focus should be considered when different levels of BPC are determined. Marketers should choose the right focus for higher evaluation toward co-branded products.
目次 Table of Contents
第壹章 緒論………………………………………………………………………………1
第一節 前言……………………………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究背景………………………………………………………………………1
第三節 研究動機………………………………………………………………………3
第四節 研究目的與問題………………………………………………………………5
第五節 研究架構………………………………………………………………………6
第貳章 文獻回顧…………………………………………………………………………7
第一節 前言……………………………………………………………………………7
第二節 共品牌策略及重要議題………………………………………………………7
一、 共品牌策略………………………………………………………………………7
二、 夥伴間契合度的重要性…………………………………………………………9
三、 契合度與共品牌產品的評價關係………………………………………………12
第三節 享樂性購物動機……………………………………………………………15
一、 購物動機對於消費者行為之影響………………………………………………15
二、 享樂性購物動機與共品牌策略…………………………………………………17
第四節 共品牌產品廣告之廣告焦點………………………………………………18
一、 廣告與共品牌策略………………………………………………………………18
二、 廣告方式對於消費者形成評價的影響…………………………………………19
三、 廣告焦點、消費者資訊處理與共品牌之評價…………………………………21
第五節 小結…………………………………………………………………………22
第參章 研究設計與方法………………………………………………………………23
第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………………23
第二節 研究假設與架構……………………………………………………………23
一、 廣告焦點與夥伴間契合度對共品牌產品評價的交互作用……………………23
二、 享樂性購物動機與夥伴間契合度對共品牌產品評價的交互作用……………25
三、 夥伴間契合度、享樂性購物動機以及廣告焦點對共品牌產品的交互作用…25
第三節 前測…………………………………………………………………………28
一、 問卷題項編排……………………………………………………………………28
二、 前測問卷施測結果………………………………………………………………30
第四節 變數的操作型定義與衡量…………………………………………………33
一、 自變數……………………………………………………………………………33
二、 依變數……………………………………………………………………………36
第五節 研究設計……………………………………………………………………37
一、 問卷題項編排與廣告設計………………………………………………………38
二、 抽樣方法…………………………………………………………………………39
第六節 小結…………………………………………………………………………39
第肆章 研究結果分析…………………………………………………………………40
第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………………40
第二節 樣本背景介紹………………………………………………………………40
第三節 信度分析……………………………………………………………………41
第四節 研究設計之檢驗……………………………………………………………41
一、 品牌評價之檢視……………………………………………………………41
二、 品牌組合契合度之驗證…………………………………………………………42
三、 品牌組合之操弄確認…………………………………………………………43
四、 廣告焦點之操弄確認……………………………………………………………44
五、 享樂性購物動機分組……………………………………………………………44
六、 潛在共變數檢定…………………………………………………………………45
第五節 研究假設之檢驗……………………………………………………………45
一、 以購買意圖為依變數之研究假設檢驗…………………………………………50
二、 以共品牌產品態度為依變數之研究假設檢驗…………………………………55
三、 以品質知覺為依變數之研究假設檢驗…………………………………………60
第六節 受訪者對實驗廣告的回應…………………………………………………65
第七節 小結…………………………………………………………………………67
第伍章 結論與建議……………………………………………………………………70
第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………………70
第二節 研究結果討論………………………………………………………………70
第三節 研究貢獻……………………………………………………………………73
一、 理論貢獻…………………………………………………………………………73
二、 實務貢獻…………………………………………………………………………74
第四節 研究限制……………………………………………………………………75
一、 樣本抽樣…………………………………………………………………………75
二、 實驗設計…………………………………………………………………………76
三、 單一產品設計……………………………………………………………………76
四、 品牌差異…………………………………………………………………………76
五、 享樂性購物動機之衡量………………………………………………………76
第五節 未來研究建議………………………………………………………………76
一、 共品牌廣告的畫面設計…………………………………………………………76
二、 受訪者注意力的移動及停留……………………………………………………77
三、 同時間比較延伸方式的差異……………………………………………………77
四、 個別品牌的影響…………………………………………………………………77
第六節 小結…………………………………………………………………………78
參考文獻……………………………………………………………………………………79
附錄一 前測問卷…………………………………………………………………………87
附錄二 正式問卷(版本一)………………………………………………………………89
附錄三 正式問卷(版本二) ………………………………………………………………94
附錄四 正式問卷(版本三) ………………………………………………………………99
附錄五 正式問卷(版本四) ……………………………………………………………104
附錄六 正式問卷(版本五)………………………………………………………………109
附錄七 正式問卷(版本六) ……………………………………………………………114
參考文獻 References
蕭至惠、郭依儒、蔡進發,自我建構與自我複雜度對共品牌評價的影響,第六屆行銷科學學會年度學術論文研討會,國立台灣大學管理學院,2009
陳欣怡,品牌個性契合度對品牌聯盟成效之影響,雲林科技大學企業管理所碩士論文,1999
Aaker, D. A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker ,D. A., and Keller, K. L. (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”
Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
Aaker, D. A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, New York: The Free Press.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K. E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations,” Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 77-95.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., and Griffen, M. (1994), “Work and/or Fun? Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal Consumer Research, 20(4),
644-656.
Besharat, A. (2010), “How Co-Branding Versus Brand Extensions Drive Consumers’ Evaluations of New Products: A Brand Equity Approach,” Industrial Marketing
Management, 39(8), 1240-1249.
Biehal, G. and Chakravarti, D. (1986), “Consumers’ Use of Memory and External Information in Choice: Macro and Micro Perspectives,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 12(4), 382-405.
Blackett, T. and Nick, R. (1999), “Co-Branding: The Science of Alliance,” The Journal of Brand Management, 7(3), 161-170.
Boush, D. M. (1993), “How Advertising Slogans Can Prime Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Psychology & Marketing, 10(1), 67-78. 80
Bouten, L. M., Snelders, D., and Hultink, E. J. (2011), “The Impact of Fit Measures on The Consumer Evaluation of New Co-Branded Products, ” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 270-284.
Bridges, S., Keller, K. L., and Sood, S. (2000), “Communication Strategies for Brand Extensions: Enhancing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links,” Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 1-11.
Broniarczyk, S. M. and Alba, J. W. (1994), “The Importance of Brand in Brand Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214-228.
Brown, M., Pope, N., and Voges, K. (2003), “Buying or Browsing? An Exploration of Shopping Orientations and Online Purchase Intention,” European Journal of
Marketing, 37(11/12), 1666-1684.
Chang, W. L. (2009), “Roadmap of Co-Branding Positions and Strategies,” The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 15(1), 77-84.
Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail Shopping Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 77(4),
511-535.
Dacin, P. A. Smith, D. C. (1994), “The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 292-242.
Dickinson, S., and Teath, T. (2006), “A Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Results Concerning Evaluations of Co-branded Offerings,” Journal of Brand Management, 13(6), 393-406.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., and Miniard, P. W. (1995), Consumer Behavior (8th Ed.), Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press. Faems, D., Looy, B. V., and Debackere, K. (2005), “Interorganizational Collaboration 81 and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238-250.
Feldman, J. M., and Jogn, G. L. (1988), “Self-generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Journal Applied
Psychology, 73(3), 421-435.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I.(1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gehrt, K. C., Alpander, G. G., and Lawson, D. A. (1992), “A Factor Analytic Examination of Catalog Shopping Orientations in France,” Journal of
Euromarketing, 2(2), 49-69.
Geuens, M., Pecheux, C., Vermeir, I., and Faseur, T. (2008), “Co-Branding in Advertising: The Issue of Category and Image Fit,” Latin American Advances in
Consumer Research, 2, eds. Acevedo, C. R., Hernandez, J. M. C., and Duluth L. T. M., MN : Association for Consumer Research,133-134.
Helmig, B., Huber, J. A., and Leeflang, P. S. H. (2008), “Co-Branding: The State of the Art,” Schmalenbach Business Review, 60(4), 359-377.
Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
Hsu, J. L., Chang, W. H., and Hung, W. C. (2004), “Products and Execution Types of Advertisements in Taiwan with Cultural Considerations,” Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 5(2), 83-98.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., and Arnold, M. J. (2006), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value: Investigating Differential Effects on Retail Outcomes,” Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 974-981.
Kand, J., and Park-Poaps, H. (2010), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Motivations of Fashion Leadership.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(2),
312-328.
Kapferer, J. N. (2001), (Re)inventing the Brand: Can Top Brands Survive the New Market Realities? London: Kogan Page. Keller, K. L. (1991), “Cue Compatibility and Framing in Advertising,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 28(1), 42-57.
Keller, K. L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing , 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kim, H. S. (2006), “Using Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Motivations to Profile Inner City Consumers,” Journal of Shopping Center Research, 13(1), 57-79.
Kirk, R. E. (1995), Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd Ed.), Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole. Klink, R. R., and Smith, D. C. (2001), “Threats to the external validity of brand extension research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 326-335.
Knudsen, M. P. (2007), “The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management 24(2), 117-138.
Kotler, P., and Keller, L. K. (2009), Marketing Management 13th edition, Pearson. Lado, N., Maydeu-Olivares, A., Cesaroni, F., Ho, H. C. (2010), “Co-Branding Strategies Applied to High-Tech Products and Luxury Brands: A Cross-Cultural Perspective,” Internal Seminars, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Lane, V. R. (2000), “The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 80–91.
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C., and Suri, R. (2003), “2 + 2 = 5? A Framework For Using Co-branding to Leverage a Brand,” Brand Management, 11(1), 35-47.
Lin, J. S., Darley, W. K., and Summers, J. O. (1994), “An Assessment of Country of Origin Effects under Alternative Presentation Formats,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(3), 274-282.
MacInnis, D. J., Nakamoto, K., Mani, G. (1992), “Cognitive Associations and Product Category Comparisons: The Role of Knowledge Structure and Context,” In J. F. Sherry, Jr., and B. Sternthal (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1), 260-267. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Maenpaa, K., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., and Paul, P. (2006), “More Hedonic Versus Less Hedonic Consumption Behavior in Advanced Internet Bank Services,” Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 11(1), 4-16.
Mandler, G. (1982), The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste, In M. S. Clark & S.T.Fiske(Eds), Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maoz, E., and Tybout, A. M. (2002), “The Moderating Role of Involvement and Differentiation in the Evaluation of Brands Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 119-131.
Martin, I. M., Stewart, D. W., and Matta, S. (2005), “Branding Strategies, Marketing Communication, and Perceived Brand Meaning: The Transfer of Purposive, Goal-Oriented Brand Meaning to Brand Extensions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 275-294.
Meyers-Levy, J., Louie, T. A., and Curren, M. T. (1994), “How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46-53.
Meyers-Levy, J., and Tybout, A. M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39-54.
Moreland, R. L., and Zajonc, R. B. (1979), “Exposure effect may not depend on stimulus recognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 1085-1089.
Park, C. Whan, Sung Youl Jun, and Allan D. Shocker (1996), “Composite branding alliances: an investigation of extension and feedback effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33(4), 453-466.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 185-193.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Schumann, D. (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Prince, Melvin and Davis, M. (2002),“Co-branding Partners: What Do They See in Each Other?” Business Horizons, 45(5), 51-55.
Pryof, K. and Brodie, R. J.(1998), “How Advertising Slogans Can Prime Evaluations of Brand Extensions: Futher Empirical Results,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(6), 497-508.
Rao, . R., Qu, L., and Rueckert, R. W. (1999), “Signaling Unobservable Product Quality Through a Brand Ally,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 258-268.
Sachse, S. B., Huttl, V. and Gierl, H. (2011), “Can Advertising Elements Improve Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions with a Moderate or Low Fit?” Psychology & Marketing, 28(2), 205-218.
Samu, S., Krishnan, H. S., and Smith, R. E. (1999), “Using Advertising Alliances for New Product Introduction: Interactions Between Products Complementarity and Promotional Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 57-74.
Scarpi, D. (2006), “Fashion Stores Between Fun and Usefulness,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(1), 7-24. 85
Simonin, B. L., and Ruth, J. A. (1998), “Is a Company Known by the Company It
Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.
Solomon, M.R. and Rabolt, N.J. (2006), Consumer Behavior in Fashion, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Tauber, E. M. (1988), “Brand Leverage: Strategy for Growth in a Cost Control World,” Journal of Advertising Research, 28(4), 26-31.
Tybout, A., Calder, B., and Sternthal, B. (1981), “Using Information-Processing Theory to Design Marketing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 73-79.
Uggla, H., 2004, “The Brand Association Base: A Conceptual Model for Strategically Leveraging Partner Brand Equity,” Journal of Brand Management, 12(2), 105-123.
Volckner, F., and Sattler, H. (2006), “Drivers of Brand Extension Success”, Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 18-34.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., and Grohmann, B. (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 310–320.
Walchli, S. B. (2007), “The Effects of Between-Partner Congruity on Consumer Evaluation of Co-Branded Products, ” Psychology & Marketing, 24(11), 947-973.
Wang, E. S.-T. (2010), “Internet Usage Purpose and Gender Differences in The Effects of Perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic Value,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2), 179-183.
Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., and Priluck, R. (2000), “Co-Branding: Brand Equity and Trial Effects,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(7), 591-604.
Wyer, R. S., and Srull, T. K. (1986), “Human Cognition in Its Social Context,” Psychological Review, 93(3), 322-359.
Yalch, R. and Spangenberg, E. (1993), “Using Store Music for Retail Zoning: A Field Experiment”, in McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Rresearch, Provo, 20, 632-636.
Yu, C. and Bastin, M. (2010), “Hedonic Shopping Value and Impulse Buying Behavior in Transitional Economies: A Symbiosis in The Mainland China Marketplace,” Brand Management, 18(2), 105-114.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968), “Attitudinal effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980), “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,” American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code