進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1105201714033600
論文名稱(中文) From Simple to Compound: How Firms' Relationships Influence Brand Evaluation in Smartphone Market
論文名稱(英文) From Simple to Compound: How Firms' Relationships Influence Brand Evaluation in Smartphone Market
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 國際經營管理研究所碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Institute of International Management (IIMBA--Master)(on the job class)
學年度 105
學期 2
出版年 106
研究生(中文) 徐鵬翔
研究生(英文) Peng-Hsiang Hsu
電子信箱 donnyhsu0511@gmail.com
學號 RA7991194
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 103頁
口試委員 召集委員-方世杰
口試委員-王鈿
指導教授-高如妃
中文關鍵字 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 
英文關鍵字 Compound relationship  Simple relationship  Dominant relationship  Corporate relationship  Brand quality  Brand attitude  Brand credibility  Self-brand connection 
學科別分類
中文摘要 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。
英文摘要 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.
論文目次 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
參考文獻 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.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2022-05-11起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2022-05-11起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw