Abstract
Purpose
This paper fills a gap in the literature on branding, as local and glocal brands have not received as much attention as global brands from academics and practitioners and the scarce amount of relevant research done on glocal branding strategies is mainly theoretical or conceptual.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper therefore defines a model relating brand beliefs (brand quality, brand image, brand familiarity and brand as a social signalling value), brand attitudes and brand purchase intentions. The model is then tested with a sample of different categories/types of consumer brands (local, global and glocal). The influence of the type of brand on these relationships is then analysed.
Findings
The findings suggest that brand quality is the most important driver of brand attitude for any type of brand, and that the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude, as well as between brand attitude and brand purchase intention, is weaker for a glocal brand than for a local or global brand.
Originality/value
This paper provides new empirical evidence of the influence of brand type on brand associations and attitude configurations and the effects these attitudes have on buying intentions. This work is also relevant for the managers’ efforts to develop more effective global, glocal and local marketing strategies for brand positioning.
Propósito
El presente trabajo persigue contribuir a la literatura sobre marcas al tratar sobre las marcas locales y las marcas glocales, puesto que éstas han estado menos estudiadas que las marcas globales.
Diseño/metodología/enfoque
Definimos un modelo que relaciona las creencias de marca (la calidad de marca, la imagen de marca, la familiaridad de marca y la marca como señal de valor social), las actitudes de marca y las intenciones de compra de la marca, probamos el modelo con una muestra de diferentes categorías de marcas de consumo (local, global y glocal) y analizamos la influencia del tipo de marca en estas relaciones.
Resultados
Nuestros resultados sugieren que la calidad es el impulsor más importante de la actitud hacia la marca, para cualquier tipo de marca, y que la relación entre la calidad y la actitud hacia la marca, así como entre la actitud hacia la marca y la intención de compra es más débil para una marca glocal que para una local o global.
Originalidad/valor
La investigación proporciona nuevas evidencias empíricas en relación a la influencia del tipo de marca (local, global o glocal) en las asociaciones de marca y en la configuración de las actitudes hacia dichas marcas y en su intención de compra. Nuestro trabajo es de interés también para los directivos de marketing ya que les puede permitir desarrollar mejores estrategias de posicionamiento para marcas locales, globales o glocales.
Palabras claves
Marca global, Marca local, Marca glocal, Teoría de las señales, Actitud hacia la marca, Intención de compra
Tipo de artículo
Trabajo de investigación
Keywords
Citation
Lopez-Lomelí, M.Á., Llonch-Andreu, J. and Rialp-Criado, J. (2019), "Local, global and glocal consumer brand relationships: Relación entre marcas de consumo locales, globales y glocales", Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 775-798. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-10-2018-0046
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Miguel Ángelngel Lopez-Lomelí, Joan Llonch-Andreu and Josep Rialp-Criado.
License
Published in Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Brands play a critical role in establishing a firm’s visibility and position in international markets. In today’s marketplace, however, brand managers face a very complex competitive scenario. On the one hand, international firms bring to bear the competitive advantages of high-quality standardized products that offer better consumer value and have international recognition (Alden et al., 1999; Kapferer, 2002; Özsomer, 2012; Steenkamp, 2014). On the other hand, despite the successful efforts of brand managers to globalize brands, some consumers prefer local brands, given the strong connections they felt for them (Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004; Strizhakova and Coulter, 2015) because local culture still plays a critical role in affecting consumer behaviour (Petersen et al., 2015). In addition, some local or global brands try to straddle both worlds by pursuing a “glocal” positioning, which refers to the idea “think globally, act locally” (Godey and Lai, 2011; Llonch-Andreu et al., 2016; Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010). Consumers today face three types of brands – local, global and glocal – instead of the traditional two categories. As a result, marketers need a clear understanding of consumers’ attitudes and responses to these different brand categories to develop effective brand strategies (Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010). However, the literature shows that academics and practitioners have not given local and glocal brands as much attention as global brands (Dumitrescu and Vinerean, 2010; Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004; Sichtmann et al., 2018), and the scarce amount of relevant research conducted on glocal branding strategies is mainly theoretical or conceptual. To analyse consumer attitudes and responses to these different categories of brands, this study focuses on the impact of brand type on the relationships between brand beliefs, brand attitudes and brand purchase intentions. Although some studies have analysed the relationship between brand beliefs (i.e. brand image and brand quality) and brand attitude (Low and Lamb, 2000), as well as the relationship between brand attitude and brand purchase intention (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012), none have done this analysis separately for the different categories of brands (local, global or glocal). This study therefore contributes to the literature by studying the relationships between brand beliefs, brand attitudes and brand purchase intentions for local, global and glocal brands.
It can be derived from the recent conceptual literature that the type of brand may have an influence on the relationship between brand evaluation and brand attitude and also between brand attitude and purchase intention regarding consumer brands (Swoboda et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2015); however, this type of influence has not yet been empirically analysed. The main objective of this research is therefore to define a model relating brand beliefs (specifically brand quality, brand image, brand familiarity and brand as a social signalling value), brand attitudes and brand purchase intentions for consumer goods, test it with a sample of different brand categories (local, global and glocal) and analyse the influence of brand type on the relationship between brand beliefs and brand attitudes, as well as between brand attitudes and brand purchase intentions. The findings provide academics with new empirical evidence of the influence of brand type on brand associations and attitude configurations and on the effects of these attitudes on buying intentions. This study is also relevant for managers’ efforts to develop more effective global, glocal and local marketing strategies for brand positioning.
The paper is organized as follows: in the first section the different brand typologies are defined, as well as the conceptual foundations, the theoretical model and the proposed hypotheses. In the second section, the survey and the methodology applied are described. Results are presented in the third section. In the fourth section, there is a discussion of the results and conclusions. Finally, in the last two sections, the managerial implications are presented and research limitations and future research directions are discussed.
2. Study background
2.1 Brand categorization
Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) identified “localism” and “globalism” as the “two axial principles of our age”. They argued that localism and globalism are not the end poles of a continuum but rather can co-occur, giving rise to four cells. They studied the effects of localism and globalism within the context of consumer attitudes towards local and global products. The present work uses the same “axial principles of localism and globalism” but in the context of perceived brand localness (PBL) and perceived brand globalness (PBG).
Traditionally, the literature on branding has acknowledged two categories of brand: local and global. Local brands usually exist in one country, in a limited geographical area (Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004) or are developed for and tailor-made to the unique needs and desires of local markets (Özsomer, 2012). Because this paper adopts a subjective criteria based on the consumer’s point of view, local brands include those that are perceived as local by consumers. Local brands will therefore be those with high PBL and low PBG. The matrix in Figure 1 shows how a local brand is categorized. This figure is adapted from a previous matrix in Steenkamp and De Jong (2010).
Global brands have been defined in the literature from different perspectives. In the same manner as local brands are handled, in this paper global brands include those that are perceived as global by consumers (Steenkamp et al., 2003; Strizhakova et al., 2008): in other words, those brands with high PBG and low PBL (Figure 1). In addition, some local or global brands try to straddle both worlds by pursuing a “glocal” positioning – in other words, the result of a “glocal marketing strategy”, which refers to the idea “think globally, act locally” (Godey and Lai, 2011; Llonch-Andreu et al., 2016; Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010), which yields a well-balanced combination of global and local elements (Godey and Lai, 2011) and benefits from a mixture of the competitive advantages of both categories. According to Sichtmann et al. (2018), there are two ways for a brand to become glocal. The first refers to brands originating from the consumer’s own country. The combination of a local origin with a global reach cultivates feelings of pride for the success of the domestic player who has “made it” internationally (Riefler, 2012). A good example of that type of path could be Red Bull, an Austrian brand that has successfully internationalized and is thus a glocal brand in its native Austria. The second path refers to foreign brands that can achieve hybridization by developing local market connections, embedding in local market consumption norms and acquiring local meaning (Sichtmann et al., 2018). For instance, Pizza Hut and Danone use local ingredients in their production in the different markets to adapt their products to local tastes, despite having a clear global brand image and a highly standardized product-price mix (Sichtmann et al., 2018). Because glocal brands are perceived as simultaneously global and local by consumers, this paper categorizes glocal brands as those with high PBL and high PBL (Figure 1).
According to Figure 1, there is still a fourth brand category called “functional”, which is a brand with low PBL and low PBG; in other words, it is a brand that does not fit with traditional consumption standards and is associated with commodified products. However, given that functional brands represent those brands for consumers who do not follow traditional consumption patterns and are not interested in branded products, this paper focuses on the three more relevant types of branded products found in the market: local, global and glocal.
2.2 Conceptual foundation and theoretical model
The literature on international branding in general is rooted in international marketing strategy (Wong and Merrilees, 2007). One of the most frequent issues in international branding research relates to consumer perceptions of brand globalness and localness (Whitelock and Fastoso, 2007). This paper fits precisely in this stream of research. Articles within this group have analysed the impact of the perception of a brand as being global or local on consumer choice for this brand.
As Riefler (2012) highlights, the literature regarding global brands has received some criticism for including either brand attitude (Alden et al., 2006) or purchase intention (Steenkamp et al., 2003), but not both. This paper tries to overcome this criticism by proposing a model based on the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), which posits that behavioural intentions are a function of salient information or beliefs about the likelihood that performing a particular behaviour will lead to a specific outcome; it is therefore called the belief–attitude–behaviour model. This theory includes a hierarchy of three outcome variables: brand evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention. According to the belief–attitude–behaviour model, brand evaluation has a direct influence on brand attitude, and brand attitude directly affects purchase intention. As key determinants for brand evaluation, this paper has identified the following variables from the literature: brand quality (Elliott and Cameron, 1994; Erdem et al., 2006), brand image (Batra et al., 2000; Faircloth et al., 2001), brand familiarity (Batra et al., 2000; Laroche et al., 1996) and brand as a means of social status (Wang and Wallendorf, 2006). These four determinants affect brand attitude, and brand attitude, in turn, has a direct influence on purchase intention. The belief–attitude–behaviour model can also be influenced by the effects of certain contingent variables (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). In this paper, these contingent variables are the brand type: local, global or glocal.
2.3 Hypothesis development
Keller (1998) defines brand associations as the informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory that contains the meaning of the brand for consumers. Some typical examples of brand associations are brand image, brand quality or brand attitude (Low and Lamb, 2000). Consumers use brand associations to help process, organize and retrieve information in the memory and aid them in making purchasing decisions (Aaker, 1991). While several research efforts have explored specific elements of brand associations (Aaker, 1991, 1997; Keller, 1993), the only reported research that has combined brand image, brand quality and brand attitude in the same study to measure how they are interrelated is by Low and Lamb (2000). However, apart from brand image and brand quality, other relevant brand associations are identifiable in the literature, including the social value of a brand (Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) and brand familiarity (Batra et al., 2000; Riefler, 2012). These different brand associations are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The product quality is one of the more critically significant factors for consumers taking purchase decisions (Erdem et al., 2006; Özsomer, 2012). Some scholars make a distinction between objective product or brand quality and perceived product or brand quality, but according to Zeithaml (1988), objective quality arguably may not exist, because all quality is perceived by someone – be it consumers, managers or researchers.
Based on the theoretical framework of perceived value developed by Sheth et al. (1991), Sweeney and Soutar (2001) established that functional value (performance/quality) is one of the key dimensions of a product or brand’s perceived value. Value perceptions can be generated without the product or service being bought or used (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Perceived quality is defined as the consumer’s judgement about the superiority or excellence of a product (Zeithaml, 1988). Because of this, consumers’ judgement of the superiority or excellence of the brand, perceived brand quality (for practical reasons, here referred to simply as brand quality) has been widely suggested in international marketing to be one of the key antecedents positively influencing brand attitude (Batra et al., 2000; Dimofte et al., 2010; Özsomer and Altaras, 2008). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
For local, global or glocal brands, the perception of brand quality has a positive influence on brand attitude.
Consumers assess products not just in functional terms of performance or quality, but also in terms of the social consequences of what the product communicates to others (Del Río et al., 2001; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Social value is defined as “the utility derived from the product’s ability to enhance social self-concept” (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001, p. 211). Consumers interested in the social value of brands will positively value those brands that enjoy a good reputation among the groups to which they belong or aspire to be part of (Long and Shiffman, 2000; Del Río et al., 2001). The perceived social value of a brand plays an important role in forming attitudes and behaviours in the purchasing process (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Prior work on brands as signals has demonstrated the positive effect of emitting the right signals for consumer preference (Erdem et al., 2006). Thus, if consumers perceive a positive social signalling value from a brand, they will feel it appropriate to use this brand in social contexts, and the brand’s social signalling value should enhance consumers’ brand attitude. The importance of the brand’s social signalling value in enhancing the attitude of symbolic brands, like luxury brands, has been more extensively investigated (Han et al., 2010) than such value for functional brands. Thus, the effect of the brand’s social signalling value among functional brands needs further research, especially from an international marketing perspective. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
For local, global and glocal brands, the perception of social signalling value has a positive influence on brand attitude.
Studies of the “mere exposure effect” (Fang et al., 2007) have shown that affect towards a given object becomes more positive when there is repeated stimulus exposure (Zajonc and Markus, 1982). Similarly, Heath (1990) has observed that people often like stimuli more as familiarity increases. The exposure effect has been corroborated by several studies (Anand et al., 1988). It has generally been recognized that the exposure effect is a basic process in preference and attitude formation and change (Zajonc and Markus, 1982). The positive relationship between brand familiarity and brand attitude has been empirically shown among local or nonlocal brands, as well as among domestic global brands and foreign global brands (Laroche et al., 1996; Batra et al., 2000; Riefler, 2012). Thus, the following hypothesis is posited:
For local, global or glocal brands, brand familiarity has a positive influence on brand attitude.
Brand image has been defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 3), and it consists of functional and symbolic brand beliefs (Low and Lamb, 2000). Firms assess the brand equity consumers confer on their products based on awareness and image, which are critical elements for building brand preference (Godey and Lai, 2011; Keller, 1993). Batra et al. (2000) have identified a strong relationship between brand image and brand attitude in India for local, nonlocal and even for blended or hybrid brands. Frank and Watchravesringkan (2016) have also identified a close relationship between brand image and brand attitude among global brands. However, from Keller’s (1993) point of view, if brand attitude is a part of brand image, brand attitude should be a driver of brand image (Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1993). Faircloth et al. (2001), with an experimental design study, were able to support this proposition. Although there are contradictory perspectives about this issue, our standpoint is that brand image is an antecedent of brand attitude. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
For local, global or glocal brands, the perception of brand image has a positive influence on brand attitude.
An attitude “is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1998, p. 269). Brand attitudes are defined as consumers’ overall evaluations of a brand (Wilkie, 1986). Brand attitudes are important because they often form the basis for consumer behaviour (Keller, 1993; Spears and Singh, 2004) such as purchase intentions. Purchase intentions are personal action tendencies related to the brand (Bagozzi et al., 1979). Intentions are different from attitudes. Whereas attitudes are summary evaluations, intentions represent “the person’s motivation in the sense of his or her conscious plan to exert effort to carry out a behavior” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, p. 168).
In line with Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) belief–attitude–behaviour model, there is a positive relationship between brand attitude and brand purchase intention (Küster-Boluda and Vidal-Capilla, 2017). The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) provides support for the relationship between attitudes and purchase intention. Thus, the theory specifies that purchase intentions are a function of brand attitudes (McKenzie and Spreng, 1992), as has been corroborated in different studies with global, local and even glocal brands (Halkias et al., 2016; Laroche et al., 1996; Riefler, 2012; Zarzuela and Anton, 2015), but without conducting a separate analysis comparing these different type of brands, as planned in this paper. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
For local, global or glocal brands, brand attitude has a positive influence on brand purchase likelihood.
Some previous studies have suggested that a consumer’s decision-making process regarding brand evaluation, brand attitude and brand purchase intention can be influenced by the type of brand (local vs. global). However, most of the existing research on this topic is conducted based on the level of PBG and PBL (Sichtmann et al., 2018; Swoboda and Hirschmann, 2016; Swoboda et al., 2012), instead of conducting a separate analysis for local and global brands and comparing the effects. The only empirical research that analyses the effect of a brand being local or global on the relationship between brand evaluations and purchase intentions appears to be Strizhakova and Coulter (2015). However, they conduct this analysis based only on the relationship between brand quality and brand purchase likelihood, and between brand identity and brand purchase likelihood. Therefore, there is still room to explore the effects of brand type (local, global and glocal) in the belief–attitude–behaviour model to identify a moderating effect of brand type on such a model.
3. Methodology
To meet the objectives of the present study, two steps were implemented. The first step consisted in a survey in Mexico to gather data to categorize a set of 24 brands into local, global or glocal based on the consumer perception. The second step entailed to conduct, also in Mexico, another consumer survey some month later to gather additional data to analyse the proposed relationships in the theoretical model with 12 brands (4 local, 4 global and 4 glocal) out of the 24 brands categorized in the previous survey.
In the first survey, the selection of product categories was based on the following characteristics:
-
product categories highly familiar to Mexican consumers such as breakfast cereal, yoghurt, chocolate candy, beer, sportswear and footwear; the product categories covered a wide range of consumer goods to avoid category specificity and thus enhance the generalizability of the findings (Halkias et al., 2016); and
-
product categories that contained both leading global and local brands from an objective perspective, that is, this paper considered local brands those that exist in one country, in a limited geographical area or are developed for and tailor-made to the unique needs and desires of local markets (Özsomer, 2012; Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004), whereas this paper treated as global brands those that are present in all regions of the world, with a significant percentage of their sales coming from outside the home region and total revenues of at least $1bn (ACNielsen).
Participating brands were then chosen based on the ones with a stronger market share in the given product categories based on Euromonitor. A focus group was conducted to verify consumer familiarity with the brands prior to the start of the study.
A questionnaire was developed to classify these brands into local, global and glocal from the consumer point of view, following the categorization principles suggested by Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) (Figure 1). Multiple items were used to measure PBL and PBG using a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”), aligning with previous research in this field (Steenkamp et al., 2003).
According to this approach, local brands were those with low PBG and high PBL, global brands those with high PBG and low PBL and glocal brands those with high PBG and high PBL (Llonch-Andreu et al., 2016). To ensure that the questionnaire was clear and readable, a focus group was conducted with a group of consumers. Then the survey was carried out with a matched national representative sample of the population of Mexico (Table I). This survey applied 400 questionnaires via face-to-face personal interviews, which were collected in the Guadalajara City area using a non-probabilistic sample by quota, with proportional quotas to the population distribution of Mexico by age and gender, based on the population census of Mexico (INEGI, 2010).
Of the 24 brands initially chosen for this research, 11 were categorized as global, 8 as local and 4 as glocal; one was also categorized as functional (low PBL and low PBG). For the second study, 12 brands were selected (4 each for global, local and glocal) from these 24 brands. The criterion in this selection process was those brands with the strongest overall average for the categorization (stronger local, global and glocal brands, regardless of their category). The selected brands and sets are shown in Table II. The set of brands chosen for the survey constituted a well-balanced sample, as it contained the same number of global, local and glocal brands.
It has been established that the size of the brand can influence most brand equity metrics, particularly attitudes, perceptions and intentions to buy (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990). To control for this effect, this study analysed the brand size (in terms of market share or market penetration) of the four brands in every category. From this analysis, it appeared that all 12 brands in the study are big brands, because all of them have a significant market share or a relevant penetration in the Mexican market, and therefore the effect of brand size on attitudes, perceptions and intentions to buy must be similar for every category of brand.
A second questionnaire was then developed to analyse the proposed relationships in the theoretical model. The questionnaire was developed based on the theoretical model presented in Figure 2. To ensure that the questionnaire was clear and readable, a focus group was conducted with a selected group of consumers before the application of the study in the field.
The second survey, which was conducted some months later than the first, also applied 400 questionnaires to a matched national representative sample of the population of Mexico (see again Table I) via face-to-face personal interviews. Although the sample had the same number of individuals and exactly the same distribution in terms of age and gender, these individuals were different from those of the first survey. These were collected in Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey, the three most important cities in Mexico, using a non-probabilistic sample by quota, with proportional quotas to the population distribution of Mexico by age and gender, based on the population census of Mexico (INEGI, 2010). Because the survey included the beer product category, consumers under Mexico’s legal drinking age (18+) were not included.
Brands were distributed into global, local and glocal categories. These sets of brands were rotated among questionnaires to provide consistency (Batra et al., 2000). Each of the 400 participants responded to questions about three brands: one global, one local and one glocal. The questions were also rotated when evaluating each of the participating brands in the same questionnaire to avoid the so-called “learning effect”.
Measures for this study were drawn from previous items/measures used in the literature. Table III presents the sources of the items/measures for each variable used. Multiple items were used to measure each of the factors; participants responded on a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”), consistent with the approach used in previous research in this field (Steenkamp et al., 2003).
4. Analysis and results
Structural equation modelling (SEM), specifically partial least squares (PLS), was used to test the measurement and structural model. PLS-SEM is an appropriate analytical procedure when it is not possible to fulfil the set of assumptions of the covariance-based SEM technique (based on maximum likelihood estimators), including the multivariate normality of data (Hair et al., 2014), or when there is an ordinal measurement scale. This technique as used because it is more appropriate for the non-normal distribution of most indicators (Chin et al., 2003). To show the violation of the normality assumption, Table IV includes the basic indices of central tendency (mean, median), variability (standard deviation) and shape (skewness and kurtosis) of all the manifest variables. To test the extent to which the distribution of each variable deviated from the desired values of symmetry and kurtosis (both coefficients are zero when a random variable follows a normal distribution), a univariate normality contrast based on skewness and kurtosis statistics together is provided. The results obtained show the departures from the normality distributional assumption. Furthermore, as most of the hypothesized relationships have been previously under-investigated in the literature, PLS-SEM is an adequate procedure for analysing the model hypothesized in this study. SmartPLS 3.0 software was used to analyse the data (Ringle et al., 2005). The stability of the estimates was tested via a bootstrap re-sampling procedure for 500 sub-samples (Chin, 1998).
4.1 Reliability and validity assessment
First, following the approach of other studies (Alegre and Chiva, 2013; Ifinedo, 2011), procedural remedies for controlling common method bias were followed (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, to increase the study’s validity, clear and concise questions were used in the questionnaire. Second, to reduce apprehension, respondents’ anonymity was assured. Third, a statistical procedure (the Harmon one-factor test) was used to assess whether bias was a problem in the sample. If there is a substantial amount of common method variance, either a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis, or one general factor will account for most of the covariance among the variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results show that common method bias was not a relevant concern in this data set: the factor analysis conducted in the overall sample resulted in three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (accounting for 69.48 per cent of the total variance).
Second, an analysis of the validity and reliability of the scales used in the present model was performed. As one of the study objectives was to analyse the moderating effect of brand type in the relationship proposed, the reliability and validity for the subgroups generated was tested, considering the type of brand to establish that the measurement instrument was reliable. The validity and reliability of the scales for four models (all of the brands, global brands, local brands and glocal brands) was therefore analysed. The development of the scales was founded on a review of the most relevant literature, thus assuring the content validity of the measurement instruments (Cronbach, 1971) (Table III).
To analyse the reliability of the constructs, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted in SPSS software. The consideration of multiple items for each construct increases construct reliability (Terblanche and Boshoff, 2008). Using EFA and considering the different items for each construct, only one dimension appeared for all constructs. Therefore, EFA confirmed the unidimensionality of the constructs considered in the model. The item–total correlation, which measures the correlation of each item with the sum of the remaining items that constitute the scale, was above the minimum of 0.3 recommended by Nurosis (1993) for all constructs in the sample used.
The results of the PLS for reflective indicators are reported in Table V (the same information considering individually global, local and glocal brands is available upon request). Convergent validity is verified by analysing the factor loadings and their significance. The results of the measurement models provide good convergent validity. The individual item loadings in the models are higher than 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) and the average of the item-to-factor loadings is higher than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2006). The significance of the loadings was checked with a re-sampling procedure (500 sub-samples) to obtain t-statistic values. These were all significant (p < 0.001). These findings provide evidence supporting the convergent validity of all the reflective constructs for the four models.
Composite reliability (CR) represents the shared variance among a set of observed variables measuring an underlying construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Generally, a CR of at least 0.60 is considered desirable (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). This requirement is fulfilled for every factor in the four models. The average variance extracted (AVE) was also calculated for each construct; the resulting AVE values were greater than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, the constructs for each model demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability.
Finally, a comparison of bivariate correlations and square roots of the AVEs, presented in Table VI, shows adequate discriminant validity of all constructs for every model, as all diagonal values exceed the inter-construct correlations (the same information considering individually global, local and glocal brands is available upon request). Discriminant validity indicates the extent to which a given construct is different from other latent variables.
Based on all criteria, this measure can be accepted as a valuable instrument built from reliable and valid constructs for the seven models.
4.2 Structural model
Once the psychometric properties of the measurement instrument had been evaluated, the structural model was then estimate using PLS and the same criteria to determine the significance of the parameters (bootstrapping of 500 sub-samples).
First, the general model was estimated. The estimations show that brand quality, brand familiarity and brand image have a positive impact on brand attitude; however, brand social signalling value does not have a significant impact on brand attitude. Furthermore, brand attitude has a significant positive impact on brand purchase likelihood. To assess the predictive ability of the structural model, we followed the approach proposed by Falk and Miller (1992), namely that the R2 value (variance accounted for) of each of the dependent constructs exceeds 0.1. Table VII shows the estimated coefficients and the R2 values for the dependent variables and shows that the R2 values for the dependent variables are higher than the critical level mentioned. Another test applied was the Stone–Geisser test of predictive relevance (Q2). This test can be used as an additional assessment of model fit in PLS analysis (Geisser, 1975). The blindfolding technique was used to calculate Q2. Models with a Q2 greater than zero are considered to have predictive relevance (Chin, 1998). In the present case, Q2 is positive for all predicted variables.
Second, the model was run separately for each subgroup of brands. Table VII contains the obtained results, as well as the R2 values and Q2 values. The results obtained suggest that the brand quality, brand familiarity and brand image of a local, global or glocal brand positively affect brand attitude; thus H1, H3 and H4 are supported. Likewise, brand attitude for a local, global or glocal brand influences brand purchase likelihood, so H5 is also supported. However, the relationship between the social signalling value of a local, global or glocal brand on brand attitude is not significant, and therefore H2 is rejected. Again, the R2 values for the dependent variables are higher than 0.1 and Q2s are positive for all predicted variables for all brands.
Furthermore, the path coefficient differences among the groups formed by the different types of brands were examined based on the non-parametric approach, PLS-MGA (Henseler et al., 2009), which does not impose any restrictions on data distribution. Based on this analysis, it appears that the type of brand only affects the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude; more precisely, the impact of brand quality on brand attitude is weaker for glocal brands than for global or local brands (p-values are 0.065 and 0.018, respectively). In other words, whether the brand is global, local or glocal has an impact on the proposed relationship, and the relationship is stronger among brand quality and brand attitude in global or local brands than in glocal brands. Likewise, brand type also has an impact on the relationship between brand attitude and brand purchase likelihood. The impact of brand attitude on brand purchase likelihood is also weaker for glocal brands than for global or local brands (p-values are 0.075 and 0.006, respectively).
Figure 3 shows a synthesis of the results obtained. Consistent with Chin (1998), bootstrapping (500 re-samples) was used to generate t-values. Support for each general hypothesis can be determined by examining the sign and statistical significance of the t-values.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The present research makes several important contributions to marketing theory and practice. Regarding its academic contributions, first, it is a pioneering study of brand identity, which has previously categorized brands into local, global and glocal, using a quantitative technique that takes into consideration the consumer perspective. This technique can be used to size the subjective categorization of a brand and thus the positioning of the brand as local, global or glocal. It allows the identification of glocal brands from the consumer point of view, something that was not possible based on existing methodologies. This is perhaps the reason why most scholars have centred their studies on global brands (Holt et al., 2004), local brands (Kapferer, 2002) or both (Özsomer, 2012; Steenkamp et al., 2003), leading to glocal brands being overlooked in academic research, despite their common presence in the current international marketplace. Many local brands have become global, and several global brands have adapted their identity for positioning in local markets. Thus, another significant contribution of this paper is to show the importance of including glocal brands when analysing brand categorization, not only local or global brands, as it has traditionally been done. Glocal brands are an important feature for many emerging markets, not just Mexico (Sichtmann et al., 2018).
The results of the present study reveal that, independently of the brand categorization considered, brand quality, brand image and brand familiarity have in all cases a positive influence on brand attitude. These results suggest that, of these three brand dimensions, the strongest effect on brand attitude comes from brand quality for all brand typologies. However, brand as a social signalling value for a local, global or glocal brand is not related here to brand attitude. This is probably because all brands taken into consideration are consumer brands, and most of them are functional brands. Perhaps if more symbolic or luxury brands had been considered, the relationship between the social signalling value of the brand and its brand attitude would have been positive. It should also be emphasized that the present results clearly suggest a positive effect for the brand image of local, global or glocal brands on brand attitude. Thus, although some previous research has identified the reverse relationship (Faircloth et al., 2001), in the present case, brand image is clearly an antecedent of brand attitude for any brand type.
Once a set of brands had been categorized as local, global or glocal, it was possible to analyse the moderating effects of this categorization on a belief–attitude–behaviour model. The analysis results suggest a moderating effect of brand type on the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude. The effect of brand quality on brand attitude is weaker for glocal brands than for local or global brands. This result can be justified based on two theories: the accessibility–diagnosticity framework (Feldman and Lynch, 1988) and the signalling theory applied to brands (Erdem and Swait, 1998). When analysing the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude, consumers may rely on intrinsic and extrinsic cues (Olson, 1977). Intrinsic cues involve the physical composition of the product, whereas extrinsic cues are product-related, but not part of the physical product itself: they are outside the product. Extrinsic cues are more often used in product evaluations (Steenkamp, 1989) and, following the accessibility–diagnosticity framework (Feldman and Lynch, 1988), are of greater significance (they are more diagnostic) when intrinsic cues are not available (or accessible) or when consumers feel less able to judge product quality and thus feel more uncertain about how to choose brands in that category. Accessibility captures the ease with which consumers can retrieve a piece of information from memory (Menon and Raghubir, 2003), and diagnosticity refers to the relevance of information to an upcoming evaluation (Schwarz et al., 1991). Therefore, when analysing the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude, if intrinsic cues are not available (or accessible) or consumers feel less able to judge product quality, they will rely on extrinsic cues regarding brand identity. According to signalling theory (Erdem and Swait, 1998), the clarity of a brand signal refers to the absence of ambiguity in the information conveyed by the brand’s past and present marketing mix strategies and associated activities (Erdem and Swait, 1998, 2004). The signalling effect is likely to be more relevant in emerging markets, such as Mexico, because of the higher levels of uncertainty and risk involved in most product positions (Zhou et al., 2010). The clarity of a brand signal affects signal credibility because consumers may believe that firms that are willing and able to offer products that live up to their hype will send clear signals (Erdem and Swait, 1998). Credibility is broadly defined as the believability of an entity’s intentions at a particular time (Erdem and Swait, 2006). A clear and credible brand signal creates value in consumers’ eyes by reducing both information costs and the risk perceived by the consumer, thus increasing the brand’s expected utility (Erdem and Swait, 1998, 2004). Consumers perceive local brands as those with a high brand localness and global brands as those with a high brand globalness, whereas glocal brands are perceived to have both high brand localness and globalness simultaneously (Llonch-Andreu et al., 2016; Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010). Consequently, local and global brands are supposed to be brands with more clarity and thus more credibility and lower risk (functional or social risk, depending on if it is a functional or a symbolic brand; Erdem and Swait, 1998) than glocal brands, because the former are less ambiguous in terms of the information conveyed by those brands’ past and present marketing mix strategies and associated activities than the latter.
In summary, when analysing the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude, if intrinsic cues are not available or consumers feel less able to judge product quality, they will rely on extrinsic cues, such as brand identity, that are more diagnostic for them. Because of the lower brand clarity of glocal brands, the relationship between brand quality and brand attitude is weaker for glocal brands than for local or global brands.
There does not appear to be a moderating effect of brand type on the relationship between the social signalling value of a brand and brand attitude. The social signalling value of a brand derives from the social consequences of what the product communicates to others – in other words, its social value (Del Río et al., 2001; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s social value will depend on consumers’ knowledge and experiences with the brand. This piece of information should be more accessible – that is, it should be easier for consumers to retrieve from memory (Menon and Raghubir, 2003) than information regarding PBG and PBL. This may justify why the brand type does not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the social signalling value of a brand and its brand attitude.
There also did not appear to be a moderating effect of brand type (local, global or glocal) on the relationship between brand familiarity and brand attitude. The rationale is that brand quality refers to the value of the product itself, whereas brand familiarity refers to the prior knowledge the consumer has of a brand (Rao and Monroe, 1988); so in this case, although the PBG and PBL information is also accessible, it is not diagnostic because it does not assess what this association tries to measure, and therefore, it does not have an impact on the relationship between brand familiarity and brand attitude.
Regarding the relationship between brand image and brand attitude, here again, the type of brand does not appear to moderate this relationship. This might be because brand image is affected and moulded by a large number of different aspects, such as marketing activities, context variables and the characteristics of the perceiver (Cho et al., 2015; Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990). There are so many different accessible sources of information for every consumer to shape brand image that the diagnosticity of PBG and PBL to influence the relationship between brand image and brand attitude is difficult to determine.
This research has also identified a moderating effect of brand type in the relationship between brand attitude and purchase intention.
Consumer attitudes are more likely to be influenced by utilitarian cues (such as those regarding product design or product performance) for consumers with high prior experience and by user-image based cues (such as brand name, country of origin, etc.) for consumers with low prior experience (Mangleburg et al., 1998; Wood and Kallgren, 1988). Thus, for consumers with low prior experience of a brand, the more accessible information will be user-image cues, and they will mainly rely on user-image cues when forming their attitude towards the brand. Brand identity in terms of its local/global image is clearly a user-image cue that will have high diagnosticity for them (Halkias et al., 2016). Due to the lower brand clarity of glocal brands – and therefore lower credibility (Erdem and Swait, 1998) compared to local or global brands – consumers with low prior experience of the brand will perceive higher risk and lower consumer-expected utility with glocal brands (Alfonso Esteban et al., 2014; Erdem and Swait, 1998, 2004; Erdem et al., 2006), whereas consumers with high prior experience with the brand will find the information regarding cues related to product design or product performance to be more diagnostic, thus, the relationship between brand attitude and purchase intention will be weaker for glocal brands than for local or global brands.
In previous studies, the negative effects of brand ambiguity on brand evaluation regarding product/brand country of origin have been demonstrated. For instance, when consumers are unable to associate a brand with a country of origin (correctly or incorrectly), they tend to have a less positive view of the brand and lower purchase intentions than consumers who are able to assign a country of origin to the brand involved (Balbanis and Diamantopoulos, 2008, 2011). However, it appears that this is the first study that could identify empirical evidence of a moderating effect of the brand type (local, global and glocal) on the relationship between brand evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention.
6. Managerial implications
From a managerial point of view, the present results show the importance of brand quality in conditioning a positive brand attitude. Indeed, perceived brand quality is the dimension presenting the strongest relationship with brand attitude of the four considered in this study (brand quality, brand image, brand familiarity and the social signalling value of a brand). Thus, regarding leading brands, such as those considered in this paper (either local, global or glocal), managers should emphasize the perceived brand quality of their brands if they want to improve their brand attitude. As brand attitude has a strong influence on brand purchase likelihood, brand quality seems to be a key dimension in enhancing brand purchase likelihood for leading consumer brands.
Furthermore, the present results suggest the superiority of local or global brand positioning compared to glocal brand positioning. While previous studies have argued for the advantages of these hybrid strategies (glocal brand positioning) in emerging markets (Özsomer, 2012; Xie et al., 2015), findings from Heinberg et al. (2017) suggest that hybrid positioning has a negative effect on brand attractiveness and reduces the relationship between advertising frequency and brand image. According to the present results, it would be better for global brands to maintain global or a local positioning instead of developing glocal positioning, because with this mixed positioning they will probably have less brand clarity and less brand credibility. The effects of brand quality on brand attitude, as well as of brand attitude on brand purchase likelihood, would thus be weaker than for a clearer brand. Maintaining global positioning for an international brand does not necessarily mean that this brand cannot adapt its taste, flavour or packaging, for example, to the preferences of the local market. However, they should promote the brand’s international appeal and not confuse the consumer about the real personality of the brand.
One of the main reasons why consumers use local brands is because they perceive such brands to be more trustworthy than international brands (Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004). When local brands internationalize and become glocal (brands with both high brand localness and high brand globalness), what happens to their key competitive advantage of being more trustworthy than global brands? Sheth (2011) has examined this, and although he highlights the love and admiration in emerging markets for native brands that are doing exceptionally well in their internationalization process, in the case of consumer packaged goods, he asks: “Can brands be global or should they be local or regional?” (Sheth, 2011, p. 167).
Regarding local brands from Mexico that have not internationalized, Lee et al. (2008) have suggested that they should apply aggressive marketing strategies to improve consumer perceptions regarding domestic brands, such as implementing strategic alliances, licensing agreements or joint ventures, to sell under global brand names associated with higher status and perceived esteem. Based on our results, changing the positioning of local brands to glocal brands is not necessarily a good strategy to become more attractive to Mexican consumers because, as Lee et al. (2008) also posit, Mexican products are still in greater demand than products from the United States (the country of origin of many global brands in Mexico), and consumer perceptions of domestic products are very favourable.
7. Limitations and future research
One of the limitations of this work is that the research was conducted only in Mexico; a broader study among other emerging markets – or worldwide – is suggested for generalization of the results (Steenkamp et al., 2003). In addition, this study included only 12 brands in different consumer product categories; a more extensive study, including a larger number of brands and product categories, is needed (Özsomer, 2012). Furthermore, in future studies it is recommended that a similar number of symbolic and functional products in the three categories (global, local and glocal) be included. In the present study, two types of brands were also considered for glocal brands: those that were “initially” global brands and adapted to the Mexican market (Dan Up and Vitalinea), and those that were initially local brands, and internationalized and became glocal (Corona Extra or Tecate). These two types of glocal brands were not analysed individually. A subsequent study will go deeper in the analysis of glocal brands with greater attention to the different types that exist inside this group[1].
In addition, although it was verified that the size of the different brands in each category was not too different, more attention should be paid in future research to the effect of the size of the brand on the proposed relationships in the present model (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990). Moreover, in this paper did not consider a potential effect between country image and product category. Even in the case of glocal brands, there could be a country that is more associated with the product that would also affect the relationships between beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. Therefore, future research should also analyse the effect of country image in the proposed relationships to identify how these effects may influence the effects of brand type (local, global or glocal). The present research takes into consideration the consumer perspective when categorizing the different types of brands. Future research could also analyse the intended positioning of firms for their brands to compare the moderating effect of brand type from both the consumer and the company perspective. This paper also did not take into consideration the consumers’ personalities, so future research might study how consumer personality traits (e.g. ethnocentrism, cosmopolitanism or materialism) (López-Lomelí et al., 2019) influence the moderating effect of brand type on the belief–attitude–behaviour model.
Figures
Distribution of the sample by age and gender compared to the population of Mexico
| National population* | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age segment | % Men | % Women | Men | Women | Total | % of responses by age | % of segment vs national population |
| 18-19 | 50 | 50 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 6 | 6 |
| 20-29 | 48 | 52 | 54 | 53 | 107 | 27 | 26 |
| 30-39 | 48 | 52 | 46 | 48 | 94 | 24 | 23 |
| 40-49 | 48 | 52 | 32 | 38 | 70 | 18 | 18 |
| 50 + | 47 | 53 | 50 | 54 | 104 | 26 | 27 |
| Total | 48 | 52 | 194 | 206 | 400 | ||
| 49% | 51% | 100% | 100 | 100 | |||
Source:
*Mexican national institute of geography and statistics (INEGI, 2010)
Selected brands and sets for the second survey
| Brand categorisation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Set No. | Global | Local | Glocal |
| Set 1 | Adidas (sportswear) | Maizoro (cereal) | TECATE (beer) |
| Set 2 | Snickers (chocolate) | Atletica (sportswear) | Dan’Up/Danone (yogurt) |
| Set 3 | Nike (sportswear) | Carlos V (chocolate) | Vitalinea (yogurt) |
| Set 4 | Heineken (beer) | XX Lager (beer) | Corona Extra (beer) |
Constructs and measures
| Main study – Independent variables | ||
|---|---|---|
| Constructs | Items | Sources |
| Brand purchase likelihood (BPL) | I would buy it I would certainly buy it |
Dodds et al. (1991) |
| Brand quality (BQ) | This is a very well-made brand This brand shows a very high level of overall quality This brand has consistent quality |
Sweeney and Soutar (2001) |
| Brand familiarity (BF) | This brand is very familiar to me I’m very knowledgeable about this brand I have seen many advertisements about this brand in Mexican magazines and mass media such as TV |
Steenkamp et al. (2003) |
| Brand attitude (BA) | I like this brand I have a positive opinion of it This brand seems attractive (adapted) |
Batra et al. (2000) |
| Brand image (BI) | This brand has a very good image This brand is one of the best in the market (adapted) |
Batra et al. (2000) and Pina et al. (2010) |
| Brand as social signalling value (BSSV) | This brand would help me feel trendy/up-to-date I think it is particularly appropriate to use this brand in social contexts This brand could improve how I'm perceived (adapted) |
Zhou et al. (2010) |
Basic indexes of central tendency (mean. median), variability (standard deviation) and shape (skewness and kurtosis) of all the manifest variables
| Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Median | SD | skew | c.r. | kurtosis | c.r. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA1 | 1 | 7 | 5.21 | 6 | 1.55 | −0.995 | −14.069 | 0.475 | 3.356 |
| BA2 | 1 | 7 | 5.23 | 6 | 1.42 | −0.916 | −12.95 | 0.367 | 2.592 |
| BA3 | 1 | 7 | 5.19 | 5 | 1.4 | −0.81 | −11.458 | 0.104 | 0.736 |
| BF1 | 1 | 7 | 5.15 | 5 | 1.43 | −0.817 | −11.553 | 0.201 | 1.422 |
| BF2 | 1 | 7 | 5.41 | 6 | 1.37 | −0.886 | −12.53 | 0.573 | 4.053 |
| BF3 | 1 | 7 | 5.21 | 6 | 1.59 | −0.835 | −11.811 | 0.011 | 0.079 |
| BI1 | 1 | 7 | 5.25 | 5 | 1.33 | −0.709 | −10.022 | 0.08 | 0.568 |
| BI2 | 1 | 7 | 5.17 | 5 | 1.43 | −0.717 | −10.139 | 0.03 | 0.211 |
| BPL1 | 1 | 7 | 5.15 | 6 | 1.61 | −0.874 | −12.36 | −0.01 | −0.072 |
| BPL2 | 1 | 7 | 5.31 | 6 | 1.52 | −0.944 | −13.345 | 0.255 | 1.801 |
| BQ1 | 1 | 7 | 5.61 | 6 | 1.39 | −1.038 | −14.678 | 0.706 | 4.989 |
| BQ2 | 1 | 7 | 5.33 | 6 | 1.35 | −0.929 | −13.132 | 0.582 | 4.118 |
| BQ3 | 1 | 7 | 5.39 | 6 | 1.23 | −0.857 | −12.116 | 0.646 | 4.569 |
| BSSV1 | 1 | 7 | 3.63 | 3 | 1.79 | 0.095 | 1.347 | −1.127 | −7.966 |
| BSSV2 | 1 | 7 | 3.74 | 4 | 1.81 | 0.021 | 0.294 | −1.149 | −8.127 |
| BSSV3 | 1 | 7 | 3.32 | 3 | 1.77 | 0.306 | 4.334 | −1.041 | −7.36 |
| Multivariate | 87.455 | 63.115 |
Internal consistency and convergent validity (constructs with reflective indicators)
| Construct | Indicator | Mean | SD | Loading | Cronbach's alpha | Composite reliability (CR) | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA | BA1 | 5.21 | 1.55 | 0.915 | 0.894 | 0.934 | 0.826 |
| BA2 | 5.23 | 1.42 | 0.904 | ||||
| BA3 | 5.19 | 1.4 | 0.907 | ||||
| BF | BF1 | 5.15 | 1.43 | 0.862 | 0.803 | 0.883 | 0.716 |
| BF2 | 5.41 | 1.37 | 0.859 | ||||
| BF3 | 5.21 | 1.59 | 0.818 | ||||
| BI | BI1 | 5.25 | 1.33 | 0.913 | 0.765 | 0.894 | 0.809 |
| BI2 | 5.17 | 1.43 | 0.885 | ||||
| BPL | BPL1 | 5.15 | 1.61 | 0.963 | 0.922 | 0.962 | 0.927 |
| BPL2 | 5.31 | 1.52 | 0.963 | ||||
| BQ | BQ1 | 5.61 | 1.39 | 0.910 | 0.890 | 0.931 | 0.819 |
| BQ2 | 5.33 | 1.35 | 0.896 | ||||
| BQ3 | 5.39 | 1.23 | 0.909 | ||||
| BSSV | BSSV1 | 3.63 | 1.79 | 0.903 | 0.851 | 0.907 | 0.765 |
| BSSV2 | 3.74 | 1.81 | 0.822 | ||||
| BSSV3 | 3.32 | 1.77 | 0.896 |
Discriminant validity: first-order latent variables correlations and square root of the average variances extracted (Fornell–Larcker criterion)
| Construct | BA | BF | BI | BPL | BQ | BSSV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA | 0.909 | |||||
| BF | 0.744 | 0.846 | ||||
| BI | 0.757 | 0.669 | 0.899 | |||
| BPL | 0.811 | 0.695 | 0.698 | 0.963 | ||
| BQ | 0.806 | 0.747 | 0.694 | 0.746 | 0.905 | |
| BSSV | 0.323 | 0.312 | 0.368 | 0.351 | 0.302 | 0.874 |
Hypotheses and moderating effect testing
| General | Multigroup analysis | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (Global) | Group 2 (Local) | Group 3 (Glocal) | ||||||||
| Path | Coefficients | t-value (bootstrap) | Coefficients | t-value (bootstrap) | Coefficients | t-value (bootstrap) | Coefficients | t-value (bootstrap) | PLS-MGA | p |
| BA→ BPL | 0.811*** | 63.928 | 0.807*** | 32.27 | 0.833*** | 44.92 | 0.751*** | 25.31 | Global-Glocal/Local-Glocal | 0.075/0.006 |
| BF→ BA | 0.211*** | 7.898 | 0.239*** | 5.39 | 0.185*** | 4.37 | 0.263*** | 4.86 | ||
| BI→BA | 0.317*** | 12.492 | 0.255*** | 6.05 | 0.340*** | 8.49 | 0.382*** | 7.78 | ||
| BQ→BA | 0.425*** | 14.450 | 0.431*** | 8.43 | 0.477*** | 10.32 | 0.303*** | 4.51 | Global-Glocal/Local-Glocal | 0.065/0.018 |
| BSSV→BA | 0.012 | 0.829 | 0.031 | 1.01 | −0.03 | 1.31 | 0.042 | 1.75 | ||
| R2 (BA) | 0.74 | 0.66 | 0.79 | 0.74 | ||||||
| R2 (BPL) | 0.65 | 0.54 | ||||||||
| Q2 (BA) | 0.61 | |||||||||
| Q2 (BPL) | 0.61 | |||||||||
***p < 0.001
Note
Many thanks to a reviewer of the first version of the paper for sharing this suggestion.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude – behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 888-918.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall. NJ.
Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999), “Brand positioning through advertising in asia, North america, and Europe: the role of global consumer culture”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Batra, R. (2006), “Consumer attitudes toward marketplace globalization: structure, antecedents, and consequences”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 227-239.
Alegre, J. and Chiva, R. (2013), “Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 491-507.
Alfonso Esteban, A., Delgado Ballester, M.E. and Pelaez Muñoz, J. (2014), “¿quién ama a las marcas? determinantes personales y de consumo”, Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing Esic, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 2-16.
Anand, P., Holbrook, M.B. and Stephens, D. (1988), “The formation of affective judgements: the cognitive-affective model versus the independence hypothesis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 386-391.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equations models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P., Tybout, A.M., Craig, C.S. and Sternthal, B. (1979), “The construct validity of tripartite classification of attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 88-95.
Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A. (1990), “Robust measures of consumer Brand beliefs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 477-484.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Ramachande, S. (2000), “Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-95.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”, in Marcoulides GA. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. London, 295-236.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Cho, E., Fiore, A.M. and Russell, D.W. (2015), “Validation of a fashion brand image scale capturing cognitive, sensory, and affective associations: testing its role in an extended brand equity model”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Cronbach, L.J. (1971), “Test validation”, in Thorndike R.L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement, American Council of Education: Washington, DC.
Del Río, A.B., Vázquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “The role of the brand name in obtaining differential advantages”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 452-465.
Dimofte, C.V., Johansson, J.K. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2010), “Global brands in the United States: how consumer ethnicity mediates the global brand effect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 81-106.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis, ACR North American Advances, Chicago.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319.
Dumitrescu, L. and Vinerean, S. (2010), “The glocal strategy of global brands”, Studies in Business and Economics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 147-155.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, San Diego.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1998), Attitude Structure and Function, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Elliott, G.R. and Cameron, R.C. (1994), “Consumer perception of product quality and the country-of-origin effect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 49-62.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer Psycology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-157.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (2004), “Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 191-198.
Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006), “Brands as signals: a cross-country validation study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B.L. (2001), “The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 61-75.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press: Akron.
Fang, X., Singh, S. and Ahluwalia, R. (2007), “An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 97-103.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), “Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 421-435.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frank, P. and Watchravesringkan, K. (2016), “Exploring antecedents and consequences of young consumers’ perceived global brand equity”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 160-170.
Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 70 No. 350, pp. 320-328.
Godey, B. and Lai, C. (2011), “Construction of international brand portfolios: impact on local brands”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 402-407.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halkias, G., Davvetas, V. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2016), “The interplay between country stereotypes and perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand preference”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9, pp. 3621-3628.
Han, Y.J., Nunes, J.C. and Drèze, X. (2010), “Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 15-30.
Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012), “Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1254-1263.
Heath, T.B. (1990), “The logic of mere exposure: a reinterpretation of anand, holbrook, and stephens (1988)”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 237-241.
Heinberg, M., Ozkaya, H.E. and Taube, M. (2017), “The influence of global and local iconic brand positioning on advertising persuasion in an emerging market setting”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 1009-1022.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri P.N. (Eds), New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, 277-319.
Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004), “How global brands compete”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 9, pp. 68-75.
Ifinedo, P. (2011), “Internet/e-business technologies acceptance in canada's SMEs: an exploratory investigation”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 255-281.
Keller, K.L, INEGI (19932010), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22, available at: www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/ccpv/cpv2010/
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kapferer, J.N. (2002), “Is there really no hope for local brands?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 163-170.
Kirmani, A. and Zeithaml, V. (1993), Advertising, Perceived Quality, and Brand Image, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 143-162.
Küster-Boluda, I. and Vidal-Capilla, I. (2017), “Consumer attitudes in the election of functional foods”, Spanish Journal of Marketing - Esic, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Zhou, L. (1996), “Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 115-120.
Lee, M.Y., Knight, D. and Kim, Y.K. (2008), “Brand analysis of a US global brand in comparison with domestic brands in Mexico, korea, and Japan”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 163-174.
Llonch-Andreu, J., López-Lomelí, M.A. and Gómez-Villanueva, J.E. (2016), “How local/global is your brand? A technique to assess brand categorisation”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 795-813.
Long, M. and Schiffman, L. (2000), “Consumption values and relationships: segmenting the market for frequency programs”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 214-232.
López-Lomelí, M.A., Alarcón-del-Amo, M., C. and Llonch-Andreu, J. (2019), “Segmenting consumers based on their evaluation of local, global and glocal brands”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 1-13, doi:, 10.1080/08961530.2019.1590282 (available on line 21-05-19)
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-368.
McKenzie, S.B. and Spreng, R.A. (1992), “How does motivation moderate the impact of Central and peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions?”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 519-529.
Mangleburg, T.F., Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Axsom, D., Hatzios, M., Claiborne, C.B. and Bogle, T. (1998), “The moderating effect of prior experience in consumers' use of user-image based versus utilitarian cues in brand attitude”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 101-113.
Menon, G. and Raghubir, P. (2003), “Ease-of-retrieval as an automatic input in judgments: a mere-accessibility framework?”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 230-243.
Nurosis, M.J. (1993), SPSS. Statistical Data Analysis, SPSS, Chicago.
Olson, J.C., (1977), “Price as an informational cue: effects on product evaluations“, in Woodside, A.G., Sheth, J.N. and Bennett, P.D. (Eds), Consumer and industrial buyer behavior, North-Holland, New York, NY.
Özsomer, A. and Altaras, S. (2008), “Global brand purchase likelihood: a critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 1-28.
Özsomer, A. (2012), “The interplay between global and local brands: a closer look at perceived brand globalness and local iconness”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 72-95.
Petersen, J.A., Kushwaha, T. and Kumar, V. (2015), “Marketing communication strategies and consumer financial decision making: the role of national culture”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 44-63.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer. New York, NY.
Pina, J.M., Iversen, N.M. and Martinez, E. (2010), “Feedback effects of brand extensions on the brand image of global brands: a comparison between Spain and Norway”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 9-10, pp. 943-966.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), “The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 253-264.
Riefler, P. (2012), “Why consumers do (not) like global brands: the role of globalization attitude, GCO and global brand origin”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS (Beta), University of Hamburg: Hamburg.
Schuiling, I. and Kapferer, J.N. (2004), “Executive insights: real differences between local and international brands: strategic implications for international marketers”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 97-112.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H. and Simons, A. (1991), “Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 195-202.
Sheth, J.N. (2011), “Impact of emerging markets on marketing: rethinking existing perspectives and practices”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 166-182.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Sichtmann, C., Davvetas, V. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2018), “The relational value of perceived brand globalness and localness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 1(available online 16 October 2018).
Spears, N. and Singh, S.N. (2004), “Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 53-66.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (1989), Product Quality, Van Gorcum. Assen.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2014), “How global brands create firm value: the 4V model”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 5-29.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and De Jong, M.G. (2010), “A global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 18-40.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand value”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Strizhakova, Y. and Coulter, R.A. (2015), “Drivers of local relative to global brand purchases: a contingency approach”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R.A. and Price, L.L. (2008), “Branded products as a passport to global citizenship: perspectives from developed and developing countries”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 57-85.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Swoboda, B. and Hirschmann, J. (2016), “Does being perceived as global pay off? An analysis of leading foreign and domestic multinational corporations in India, Japan, and the United States”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 1-30.
Swoboda, B., Pennemann, K. and Taube, M. (2012), “The effects of perceived brand globalness and perceived brand localness in China: empirical evidence on Western, asian, and domestic retailers”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 72-95.
Terblanche, N.S. and Boshoff, C. (2008), “Improved scale development in marketing: an empirical illustration”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 105-119.
Wang, J. and Wallendorf, M. (2006), “Materialism, status signaling, and product satisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 494-505.
Whitelock, J. and Fastoso, F. (2007), “Understanding international branding: defining the domain and reviewing the literature”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 252-270.
Wilkie, W. (1986), Consumer Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Wong, H.Y. and Merrilees, B. (2007), “Multiple roles for branding in international marketing”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 384-408.
Wood, W. and Kallgren, C.A. (1988), “Communicator attributes and persuasion: recipients' access to attitude-relevant information in memory”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 172-182.
Xie, Y., Batra, R. and Peng, S. (2015), “An extended model of preference formation between global and local brands: the roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 50-71.
Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1982), “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 123-131.
Zarzuela, P. and Anton, C. (2015), “Determinants of social commitment in the young. Applying the theory of reasoned action”, Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing Esic, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 83-94.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zhou, L., Yang, Z. and 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, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 202-221.
Further reading
Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), “Brand origin identification by consumers: a classification perspective”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-71.
Balabanis, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2011), “Gains and losses from the misperception of brand origin: the role of brand strength and country-of-origin image”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 95-116.