The impact of Country of Respondent and Familiarity on Buying Attribute Importance of Categories of Product at Different Stages of Globalization: the Evaluation of Domestic and Foreign Products

 

Emmanuel Chéron, University of Quebec at Montreal

Hideo Hayashi, Kansai University, Osaka

 

ABSTRACT

 

This study compares the perceptions of 376 Japanese and 191 Canadian consumers concerning buying attribute importance for product categories at various stages of globalization. The results indicate that there was less multivariate statistical difference between the two countries for those products at a more advanced stage of globalization (consumer electronics and clothing vs. food). The joint effects of the degree of familiarity with the category of product and the country of the respondent on buying attribute importance were tested. The effect of familiarity was found to result in a significant statistical multivariate difference on attribute importance for clothing only. The observed statistical power of the effect for the country of the respondent confirmed that more statistical difference was apparent for the less globalized product. No multivariate significant statistical interaction was found between familiarity and country of the respondent. Using a multi-attribute model, the evaluation of the three categories of product was computed for seven different countries. Comparison of the total scores of each country for each product category for the Japanese and the Canadian samples confirmed that the more globalized product showed less difference in its evaluation among countries. A well-known strong bias favoring domestic products was, however, observed in both samples.

Key words: Buying attributes, globalization, product category, familiarity, imported product, domestic product bias

 

INTRODUCTION

 

                With the increasing globalization of world trade, detailed knowledge of consumer buying attributes and attitudes toward imported products is crucial for marketers. The study of the influence of the degree of globalization of product and the familiarity of the consumer with the category of product hold potential value for researchers and marketing managers. The controversy on globalization is about whether it decreases differences of preferences among consumers or increases the need to locally adapt products to consumers. Testing whether buying attributes of local consumers in different countries are influenced by the degree of globalization of a product category makes a theoretical contribution to this issue. Practical implications could allow manufacturers of a specific product category to better identify the need to locally adjust their marketing strategies. The impact of the familiarity of the consumer with the category of product on buying attributes has also been identified in the literature as a potential indicator of the need for the company to adapt its marketing strategy according to different levels of familiarity among consumers. Testing the effect of familiarity on buying attributes for different levels of product globalization is therefore needed. From an international point of view, a multi-attribute model can be used to compute the perceived relative standings of imported categories of product at different level of globalization. This will allow us to test if consumers of different countries perceive more similar standings when the category of product is more globalized. The practical implication is for international marketers from each country to understand their global relative standing in addition to their strengths and weaknesses on specific consumer buying attributes. The level of product globalization and familiarity are potentially useful variables to explore for international marketing strategy. This information is also valuable to direct importers, wholesalers and retailers in both their buying and marketing decisions.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

 

                The process of globalization has been defined as the transformation of the world’s economy from a set of national and regional markets into a set of markets that operate without regards to national boundaries (Fraser and Oppenheim, 1997). This transformation is the result of three underlying factors: 1) The growing scale, mobility, and integration of the world’s capital markets; 2) The increasing irrelevance of national borders as regulation is liberalized and other economic barriers fall; 3) The expanding ability to leverage knowledge and talent worldwide through technology. A similar definition suggested by Modelski (1998) emphasizes four interactive dimensions of globalization: 1) Economic, 2) Political, 3) Democratic, and 4) Formation of world opinion. He argues that changes along one dimension elicit changes among the other dimensions. The process is gradual with some sectors of the economy more globalized than others and we may infer, that related to the formation of world opinion, consumers of different countries are likely to perceive more similarity among categories of products or services at more advanced stages of globalization. The degree of globalization of categories of product has been formally charted on a scale of 1 (completely globalized) to 9 (not yet globalized) by Fraser and Oppenheim (1997, Exhibit 4, p. 176.). Examples of products at level 1 are: physical commodities such as petroleum, mineral ores and timber. Examples of services at level 9 are: government services such as civil servants and national defense. Industrial products tend to be more globalized and are found in the range of 1 to 3 on the scale labor-skill and productivity-driven. Consumer goods and services appear at level 4 with, for example, consumer electronics, personal computers, and automobiles. Brandable and largely deregulated consumer goods follow at level 5 with, for example, shoes and luxury goods. More regulated and less easily globally brandable consumer goods and services appear respectively at levels 7 and 8. For example: food and personal financial services are located at level 7. Keegan and Green (2000, p. 153) recognize that the degree of product adaptation is related to cultural environment sensitivity. They suggest a similar continuum of category of products, with industrial products, such as integrated circuits, being the less sensitive, computers being in the middle of the continuum and food being the most sensitive to culture and requiring the most adaptation to the specific needs of different national markets. More globalized product categories are thus likely to require less local adaptation and to be marketed in a more similar manner across different countries.

 

Therefore, we suggest that the more globalized the category of product, the less the difference in the importance of buying attributes of consumers among countries (Hypothesis 1).

 

The degree of familiarity of consumers with the product or service has been identified in the research literature as a strong source of differences in buying attribute (Mittal, Katrichis, Forkin and Konkel, 1993; Mittal, Kumar and Tsiros, 1999; Mittal and Katrichis, 2000). For example, studies on the automobile industry have shown that the importance of the experience of the vehicle is greater than that of the service at the dealership for newly acquired customers (after two months). However, for loyal customers (after two years), service at the dealership is dominant. The level of familiarity has therefore a powerful influence on the importance of buying attributes. Product familiarity has been measured in previous research by degree of knowledge and usage (Raju, 1977). Therefore, in the present study, the level of familiarity of the respondent is obtained using a composite measure of the cognitive and behavioral experience with the category of product. Two groups of respondents are formed according to a degree of product familiarity above or below the average. With respect to the influence of the degree of globalization of products, we anticipate that a category of product that is more globalized is likely to be more familiar to consumers. Therefore, in the case of more globalized products we expect that the effect of familiarity on the importance of buying attributes across countries will be lower than for less globalized products.

 

We suggest that the higher the familiarity with the category of product, the lower the difference in the importance of buying attributes across countries for more globalized categories of product (Hypothesis 2).

 

The joint effects of familiarity and country of the respondent will be explored without any specific hypothesis as to the relative influence of each separate effect. However, according to the classification of categories of product by Fraser and Oppenheim (1997) and Keegan and Green (2000), we anticipate that the overall effect should be lower for more globalized than for less globalized product categories.

 

Hence, familiarity and the country of the respondent will have a lower overall effect on the importance of buying attributes for more globalized than for less globalized categories of products (Hypothesis 3).

 

Beyond the relative importance of buying attributes, the examination of the overall evaluations of imported product categories at different levels of globalization is an interesting extension of the impact of globalization. Using a multi-attribute model, we suggest that respondents from different countries will tend to have more similar evaluations for more globalized categories of products than for less globalized categories of products.

 

Therefore, the multi-attribute evaluations of Canadian respondents will be more similar to that of Japanese respondents for more globalized categories of product than for less globalized categories of product imported from different countries (Hypothesis 4).

 

Choice of Buying Attributes of Categories of Products and Countries of Imported Products

 

Products have been defined in terms of tangible, physical and economic attributes and intangible attributes such as images, status etc. (Keegan and Green, 2000). In international consumer buying research, product quality and price (or price for value) have been consistently used as tangible attributes and prestige, reputation and design as intangible attributes (Nagashima, 1970, 1977; Han and Terpstra, 1988; Roth and Romeo, 1992 and Papadopoulos and Heslop, 1993). In our study, these attributes were characterized as: quality, price and brand name. The importance of “word of mouth” as a form of either positive or negative popularity of a product was also proposed by Rogers (1962) in relation to the adoption process of consumers. The attribute of popularity was therefore added to our list of attributes. The effect of the country of origin on the evaluation of products in international marketing has been documented in numerous research studies over the last thirty-five years. Peterson and Jolibert (1995) confirmed in a meta-analysis that the effect of the country of origin on product evaluation was statistically significant. Hence, the country of manufacture was the fifth attribute included in our research questionnaire.

Studies measuring the perception of imported products have been criticized if no specific categories of product were involved. To meet this requirement and to cover the continuum of low, middle and high degree of globalization for consumer products as suggested by Fraser and Oppenheim (1997) and Keegan and Green (2000) we selected respectively food, clothing and consumer electronics. Finally, the countries of manufacture of the three categories of products were selected with the constraint that they would be reasonably available to respondents in Japan and in Canada.

 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

 

                The first objective of this study is to compare the effect of the degree of globalization and familiarity of categories of product on the importance of buying attributes across consumers of different countries. The second objective is to compute the multi-attribute evaluations of those same categories of product according to whether they are domestic or imported from different countries, and then to examine the degree of similarity of evaluation across the two countries of the respondents for each of the three categories. More specifically, the first objective compares Japanese and Canadian consumers in terms of the impact of the degree of globalization and familiarity with three product categories (food, clothing and consumer electronics) on the relative importance of five buying attributes (country of manufacture, price, quality, popularity and brand name). The second objective computes the specific multi-attribute evaluations of imported and domestic products from China, France, Canada, Japan, USA, South Korea, and Germany, in the same three categories, and compares the degree of association between Japanese and Canadian respondents for each category of product.

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 

Development of the Research Instrument

 

                A structured self-administered questionnaire was used, developed in English and translated in Japanese with extensive discussions using a parallel approach (Campbell and Werner 1970). The final English questionnaire was then translated and back-translated in French for data collection in the mostly French-speaking city of Montreal in the province of Quebec to ensure equivalence (Brisles 1970).

 

Research Instrument

 

                The questionnaire contained an introductory statement presenting the topic of the survey and stating that the answers would be treated in the strictest confidentiality. Then, the following sections appeared in sequential order:

1.        Degree of agreement (on a seven point-scale) with four statements pertaining to the extent of consideration of the following elements in buying decisions: country of manufacture, quality, popularity and brand name.

2.        Degree of familiarity of the three categories of product (clothing, food and consumer electronics) as measured on a seven point-scale with two statements (“I know a lot about …” and “I buy a lot of …”). Each statement was sequentially associated with a different category of product.

3.        Degree of importance (“least important”  to “most important” on a five-point scale) for country of manufacture, price, quality, popularity and brand name of each of the three categories of product (clothing, consumer electronics and food).

4.        Degree of perceived buying-value (“worst buy” to “best buy” on a seven-point scale) for price, quality and popularity of each of the three categories of product when sourced domestically or imported from six countries.

5.        Respondent profile: gender, age group, occupation, annual income, number of people in household and whether the respondent had ever visited or lived in any one of the foreign countries included in the survey. Other measurement items were also included in the questionnaire, but are not presented here.

 

Data Collection

 

                The fieldwork in Japan was done by the Kansai Branch office of Video Research Ltd using a "drop off and pick up" procedure. The sample for the research was selected from a representative master sample constructed by Video Research in 1997 and accounting for 5204 households representing a total of 12500 individuals in the Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe metropolitan areas in Japan. The initial sample size of 747 yielded a total of 376 completed questionnaires. The distribution of age groups of the final sample was very close to the census distribution. The Canadian sample was collected using a snowballing approach, originating from employees and evening students of a French speaking university in the city of Montreal, PQ. Gender and age quotas guidelines were used to improve sampling equivalence. Out of a total of 300 questionnaires distributed in Canada, 191 were completed. The percentage of male respondents was 47.3% in Japan and 49.2% in Canada.

 

RESULTS

 

Degree of Globalization and Buying Attributes Differences

 

                Mean results in Tables 1, 2 and 3 indicate that both Japanese and Canadian consumers consider the attribute of quality most important when making a buying decision. However, quality was valued more by Japanese as compared to Canadian consumers for clothing, although there was no significant differences for consumer electronics and for food. In comparison to Japan, the relative ranking of country of manufacture tended to be higher for Japan and the relative ranking of brand name tended to be higher for Canada. Popularity appears more important for Japanese respondents for food and consumer electronics; this may be due to a stronger need for affiliation in Japan than in Canada. At the level of "social needs" in Maslow's hierarchy of motivations (1954), Schütte (1998) suggests the substitution of the concept of "conformity to group norms" as an Asian equivalent. This may also result from a lower index of individualism in the Japanese culture as shown by Hofstede and Bond (1988).

                Multivariate tests of the difference between the two countries for all five attributes and for each category of product were computed using a two-group discriminant analysis. Results of these analyses are shown below each table. All three multivariate statistical differences were significant, however, the magnitude of the statistical difference as indicated by the Wilks lambda statistics and its associated c2 is increasing in the following order: clothing, consumer electronics and food. The predictive correct classification ratio is also in the same order1. Hypothesis one is thus partially confirmed with a greater multivariate difference for food, the less globalized category of product. However, clothing was expected to show more multivariate difference than consumer electronics.

 

Table 1 Mean importance of buying attributes for clothing

 

 

CLOTHING

 

Mean, (Std deviation), (Rank)

 

 

Japan (n=376)

Canada (n=191)

Univariate F

Quality:

4.54 (0.78) (1)

4.38 (0.82) (1)

5.40*

Price:

3.95 (0.84) (2)

3.90 (0.93) (2)

0.23NS

Country of manufacture:

2.28 (1.09) (3)

2.12 (1.13) (4)

3.21NS

Brand name:

2.18 (1.10) (4)

2.57 (1.01) (3)

16.85**

Popularity:

2.05 (0.93) (5)

2.05 (0.96) (5)

0.00NS

* Significant at level 0.05, **Significant at level 0.01, NS Non significant
Wilks lambda = 0.971; c2 = 16.59; p = 0.00
Cross-validated classification ratio = 65.6% vs. 66% for the maximum chance criterion

 

Table 2 Mean importance of buying attributes for consumer electronics

 

 

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

 

Mean, (Std deviation), (Rank)

 

 

Japan (n=376)

Canada (n=191)

Univariate F

Quality:

4.37 (0.92) (1)

4.25 (0.86) (1)

2.78NS

Price:

3.47 (1.06) (2)

3.73 (1.00) (2)

8.66**

Country of manufacture:

2.59 (1.39) (3)

2.27 (1.25) (4)

7.98**

Brand name:

2.36 (1.11) (4)

3.01 (0.97) (3)

59.28**

Popularity:

2.21 (1.24) (5)

1.89 (1.00) (5)

25.86**

* Significant at level 0.05, **Significant at level 0.01, NS Non significant
Wilks lambda = 0.857; c2 = 86.31; p = 0.00
Cross-validated classification ratio = 69.3% vs. 66% for the maximum chance criterion

 

Table 3 Mean importance of buying attributes for food

 

 

FOOD

 

Mean, (Std deviation), (Rank)

 

 

Japan (n=376)

Canada (n=191)

Univariate F

Quality:

4.54 (0.79) (1)

4.52 (0.77) (1)

0.00NS

Price:

3.36 (0.97) (2)

3.54 (0.98) (2)

4.47*

Country of manufacture:

3.31 (1.24) (3)

2.60 (1.15) (4)

44.38**

Popularity:

2.18 (0.93) (4)

1.85 (1.05) (5)

15.49**

Brand name:

1.62 (0.91) (5)

2.60 (1.04) (4)

130.51**

* Significant at level 0.05, **Significant at level 0.01, NS Non significant
Wilks lambda = 0.768; c2 = 146.85; p = 0.00
Cross-validated classification ratio = 75.7% vs. 66% for the maximum chance criterion

 

Product familiarity

 

                Product familiarity was measured using a seven-point Likert scale of perceived knowledge and buying experience of the category of product. Scale reliabilities, measured by the Cronbach alpha coefficient were respectively 0.68, 0.70 and 0.69 for clothing, consumer electronics and food for Japanese respondents and 0.70, 074 and 0.65 for Canadian respondents. An index of familiarity was then computed using a linear unweighted average of the two items.

 

                Using this index as an independent variable, the level of familiarity was split above and below the mean for each category of product and for each sample to form a low and high familiarity group. The effect of familiarity was then jointly tested with the effect of the country of the respondent on the importance of the five buying attributes using a multivariate analysis of variance MANOVA. Table 4 presents the multivariate statistical results. Interpretation of the single effects is simpler since no statistically significant interaction effect was found between the country of the respondent and familiarity. Hence, the effect of familiarity was found to be statistically significant for clothing only and the effect of the country of the respondent was significant for all three categories of product. Further, the degree of observed statistical power as measured by the Eta squared index was found respectively in the following decreasing order: food (0.234), consumer electronics (0.154) and clothing (0.035). The degree of statistical difference found previously with the multivariate Wilks lambda and the associated c2 was also in the same following decreasing order: food (146.85), consumer electronics (86.31) and clothing (16.59). Since the effect of familiarity was found to be very weak, this similar degree of multivariate difference is not surprising.

Thus Hypothesis 3 is only partially confirmed for the effect of country, since the effect of familiarity was statistically non significant for two of the three categories of product.

 

Table 4 Multivariate analysis of variance of the effects of country and familiarity on buying attribute importance

 

Multivariate statistics

CLOTHING

 

Country

Familiarity

Country x Familiarity

Wilks lambda

0.965

0.953

0.993

F value

3.99

5.49

0.80

Significance

0.00

0.00

0.55

(Eta)2

0.035

0.047

.007

 

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

Wilks lambda

0.846

0.985

0.988

F value

20.02

1.68

1.36

Significance

0.00

0.14

0.24

(Eta)2

0.154

0.015

0.012

 

FOOD

Wilks lambda

0.766

0.984

0.993

F value

33.57

1.84

0.753

Significance

0.00

0.104

0.58

(Eta)2

0.234

0.016

0.007

 

The univariate effect of familiarity for clothing is presented in Table 5. It appears that Japanese respondents who are less familiar with clothing put more emphasis on price information and less emphasis on brand name than more familiar respondents, while relatively less familiar Canadian respondents put less emphasis on brand name. This is consistent with previous research results confirming that less knowledgeable consumers tend to rely more on price information than on technical or intangible attributes (Jones, 1974; Raju, 1977).

 

Table 5 Univariate and multivariate differences of mean buying attribute importance for low and high familiarity respondents for clothing

 

 

Japan (n = 375)

 

Low familiarity

(n1 = 204)

High familiarity

(n2 = 171)

Univariate F

 

Mean, (Std deviation), (Rank)

 

Quality:

4.51 (0.78) (1)

4.57 (0.78) (1)

0.47NS

Price:

4.09 (0.79) (2)

3.79 (0.86) (2)

12.96**

Country of manufacture:

2.37 (1.02) (3)

2.17 (1.18) (3)

3.12NS

Popularity:

2.02 (0.89) (4)

2.08 (0.99) (5)

0.37NS

Brand name:

2.00 (1.03) (5)

2.39 (1.14) (4)

12.20**

 

Canada (n = 190)

 

Low familiarity

(n1 = 92)

High familiarity

(n2 = 98)

Univariate F

 

Mean, (Std deviation), (Rank)

 

Quality:

4.40 (0.79) (1)

4.35 (0.87) (1)

0.20NS

Price:

4.05 (0.80) (2)

3.80 (1.01) (2)

3.48NS

Brand name:

2.33 (0.89) (3)

2.82 (1.06) (3)

11.55**

Popularity:

2.17 (0.98) (4)

1.94 (0.94) (5)

2.66NS

Country of manufacture:

2.07 (1.21) (5)

2.12 (1.04) (4)

0.09NS

* Significant at level 0.05, **Significant at level 0.01, NS Non significant
Japan: Wilks lambda = 0.946; c2 = 20.66; p = 0.00
Cross-validated classification ratio = 61.9% vs. 54% for the maximum chance criterion
Canada: Wilks lambda = 0.94; c2 = 11.16; p = 0.00
Cross-validated classification ratio = 62% vs. 51% for the maximum chance criterion

 

Multi-attribute evaluation of the three categories of products by the two samples

 

Using a standard multi-attribute model, the importance of price, quality and popularity was multiplied by the perceived buying value for price, quality and popularity of each category of product from seven countries for each respondent2. Results in Table 6 show that average scores are more similar between Japan and Canada for consumer electronics than for clothing and food. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.91 and significant for consumer electronics, and is not significant for both clothing and food. However, since a strong bias is observed in favor of domestic products, the correlations were also computed after removing products from Japan and Canada. The revised correlations still show more similarity of evaluation for consumer electronics with a significant coefficient of 0.90. Although not significant, the coefficients for clothing and food indicate more similarity for clothing (0.54) than for food (0.42).

 

Table 6 Multi-attribute evaluations of the three categories of products from seven countries and correlations between Japanese and Canadian respondents

 

 

 

CLOTHING

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

FOOD

 

Mean total score (Rank)

Mean total score (Rank)

Mean total score (Rank)

 

Japan

Canada

Japan

Canada

Japan

Canada

China

36.08 (4)

34.72 (6)

30.92 (7)

34.43 (5)

37.88 (3)

30.14 (6)

France

47.02 (2)

48.99 (2)

34.67 (5)

30.38 (7)

36.58 (4)

52.16 (2)

Canada

34.19 (7)

51.67 (1)

31.47 (6)

39.32 (3)

34.49 (6)

56.86 (1)

Japan

61.91 (1)

37.33 (5)

61.46 (1)

54.51 (1)

59.67 (1)

34.43 (5)

USA

46.39 (3)

48.44 (3)

52.57 (2)

47.34 (2)

47.99 (2)

46.17 (3)

South Korea

34.45 (6)

31.15 (7)

35.01 (4)

32.81 (6)

35.19 (5)

24.89 (7)

Germany

35.18 (5)

40.03 (4)

37.89 (3)

39.19 (4)

30.24 (7)

34.68 (4)

Correlation

0.07NS

0.91**

-0.07NS

Correlation without Japan and Canada

 

0.54NS

 

0.90*

 

0.42NS

* Significant at level 0.05, **Significant at level 0.01, NS Non significant

 

 

Using the above multi-attribute measures of the categories of product evaluation by each sample, a multivariate bi-dimensional representation of the data was prepared (Brown, 1990). This multivariate graphical representation is an efficient multi-dimensional procedure relaxing the usual orthogonal orientation of the axes of the variables in traditional factorial analysis. Figure 1 is a bi-dimensional representation (accounting for 97.5% of the variance in the data) of the seven countries in relation to the three product categories as perceived by the Japanese respondents. The three categories of product are represented graphically as three oriented vectors passing through the center of the circle. The position of the label on each vector indicates the positive orientation of the multi-attribute evaluation. The angle formed by two vectors indicates the degree of correlation between two measures. In Figure 1, the perceived evaluations of the three categories of product by Japanese respondents appear strongly correlated.

The points in the diagram represent the countries. The orthogonal projections of each point on each vector give the perceived ordering of each country with respect to the corresponding category of product. For instance, the multi-attribute evaluation of Japanese respondents places clothing from Japan first, followed by France, the USA and China, with the evaluation of clothing from Germany, South Korea and Canada being less favorable. Projection of the country points in two dimensions accounts for 97.5% of the variance and therefore does not perfectly recover the scoring order of countries at the lower end of the multi-attribute measures. Further, Japanese respondents show a strong bias in favor of Japanese products in all three categories.

 

Figure 1 Multivariate representation of combined scores given by Japanese respondents

 

 

 

Figure 2 Multivariate representation of combined scores given by Canadian respondents

 

 

 

The projection of the country points in two dimensions accounts for 99.5% of the variance for the Canadian data, and therefore recovers almost perfectly the scoring order of countries. In comparison to Japanese consumers, the perception of Canadian respondents in Figure 2 shows a different correlation pattern, with the evaluation of consumer electronics almost orthogonal to the evaluation of clothing and food. From the Canadian viewpoint, the evaluation of consumer electronics is unrelated to the evaluation of clothing and food. Canadian respondents perceive consumer electronics from Japan as the best, followed by those from the USA, Canada, Germany, China, South Korea and France. However, with respect to clothing and food, Canadian respondents show a strong bias in favor of Canadian products as was found by Hung (1989). A more recent study on the quality of manufactured products from 19 countries by Gallup (Milner 1996) indicated that Canadian products (with 17.9% of respondents rating the country's products as excellent or very good) ranked after Japan (41.2%), Germany (35.1%), the USA 34.9%), Britain (21.2%) and France 20.8%). However, 60% of Canadian respondents rated their own country's products as very good to excellent, but only 41% felt that way about Japanese goods. All other respondents had a lower perception of their own country's products. However, using specific categories of products allowed us to observe that the general bias in Canada for Canadian products, although present for food and clothing, was not present for consumer electronics.

 

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

 

Several limits to this study can be raised. First, only large categories of consumer products were involved. The level of globalization may vary widely among firms within each category. For example in the food category, Nestlé is well known for adapting coffee flavor to local markets. According to Ohmae (1991), “Some companies say the new world requires homogeneous products-“one size fits all”-everywhere. Others say the world requires endless customization-special product for every region. The best global companies understand it’s neither and it’s both. They keep the two perspectives in mind simultaneously.”

Second, buying attributes were measured in terms of importance at the product category level. This does not capture how determinant an attribute would be for a consumer facing several competitors within the category.

Third, this is a cross-sectional study with respondents from specific regions, the two second-most important urban centers in Japan and in Canada. Attitude toward product category may be affected by specific events such as for example the recent milk poisoning of Snow Brand (“Yuki-Jirushi”) in Japan. Results are preliminary and need to be validated and replicated with additional samples from different regions and over more than two groups of respondents. The globalization process is dynamic and evolves as international trade deals are concluded. With lower trade barriers,  product categories may reach new markets and with a wider diffusion of information on those product categories, they may reach new levels of globalization. Future research could also cover additional categories of products and be improved by checking the perceived degree of globalization (using the dimensions of Fraser and Opppenheim, 1977 and of Keegan and Green, 2000) of those categories by the respondents themselves.

Fourth, concerning the evaluation of imported categories of products, the degree of availability of products of the specific countries within the Japanese and the Canadian markets may have an impact on consumer perception. However, Han (1989) found that when experience with a category of product from a specific country was low, a “halo” model would apply and consumers would use the country image as a proxy. Papadopoulos and Heslop (1993) have later suggested that attitudes toward each country and its products and product categories tend to be congruent. In a recent study, Heslop, Papadopoulos and Bourk (1998) show that specific product evaluations are virtually identical to the evaluation of a global product. Product images tend thus to be congruent across categories. Finally, a higher experience with domestic products may strongly account for the strong bias toward domestic categories of products found both in Japan and in Canada.

 

CONCLUSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

                The results of this study confirm that Japanese and Canadian consumers share a more similar structure of buying attribute importance for the more globalized category of consumer electronics. However, the level of product familiarity was only found to have an influence for clothing. Total evaluation of imported products in the category of consumer electronics was also found more similar than for clothing and food.

 

                The implications of this study for Canadian marketing managers is that whatever the degree of globalization of their products, Canadian consumer products in Japan compete with a less favorable and a less differentiated image. Canadian manufacturers are also likely to find that getting acceptance for their products in Japan much more difficult than in the domestic market. A condition for success for Canadian exporters to Japan is to increase the evaluation of quality, price and country of origin images of Canadian products, since they are the most important buying attributes for Japanese consumers, whatever the category of product.

                Japanese international marketing managers interested in selling food and clothing in Canada should take into account that Canadian consumers hold a strong bias in favor of Canadian products, and that they must compete with strong international competitors. Quality and price are also the most important attributes valued by Canadian consumers. However, building a well-known brand image is also important, since this is the third most important attribute favored by Canadian consumers.

 

Note 1: The cross-classification ratio is used to validate the discriminant results. The method used is also called the jackknife or U-method. The discriminant model is estimated by leaving out one case and then predicting that case with the estimated model. This is done in turn for each observation such that an observation never influences the discriminant model that predicts its group classification. The validity of the discriminant model is supported when the cross-classification ratio is above the ratio obtained if all observations were assigned to the group with the highest probability of occurrence or the maximum chance criterion (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1998). For Table 1 the discriminant model is not supported since the cross-classification ratio (65.6%) is below the maximum chance criterion of 66% (376/(376+191).

 

Note 2: To keep the length of the questionnaire reasonable and to keep the response rate acceptable, the degree of perceived buying-values of the three categories of products for each of the seven countries (21 judgments) was limited to three buying attributes. Therefore, the multi-attribute evaluation was limited to price, quality and popularity.

REFERENCES

Brisles, R.W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology. 1 (3): 185-216.

Brown, B. L. 1990. Multivariate Graphical Data Analysis: An Introduction to DataMax and DataVision. Echo Data. Orem UT.

Campbell, D.T. and O. Werner. 1970. Translating, working through Interpreters and the Problem of Decentering. In A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology. Eds. R. Naroll and R. Cohen. New York, The Natural History Press: 398-420.

Fraser, J. and J. Oppenheim. 1997 What’s New about Globalization? The McKinsey Quartely. Number 2. p.176.

Hair, J.F.Jr. R.E. Anderson R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Fifth Edition. New Jersey, Prentice Hall: 313.

Han, M. C. 1989. Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? Journal of Marketing Research. 26 (2): 222-29.

Han, M. C. and V. Terpstra. 1988. Country-of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National Products. Journal of International Business Studies 19 (3): 235-255.

Heslop, L. A. N. Papadopoulos and M. Bourk. 1998. An Interregional and Intercultural Perspective on Subcultural Differences in Product Evaluations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences. 15 (2): 113-127.

Hofstede, Geert, and Michael Harris Bond. 1988. The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics. Spring: 5-21.

Hung, C.L. 1989 A Country-of-Origin Product Image Study: the Canadian Perception and Nationality Biases., Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 1 (3): 5-26.

Jones, J. A. W. 1974 Price Cue Utilization in Quality Judgments As A Function of Consumer Expertise: A Replication. unpublished MS Thesis Purdue University August.

Keegan, Warren, J. and Mark S. Green. 2000 Global Marketing. Second Edition, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Milner, B. 1996. Survey finds pride in Canadian products high. The Globe and Mail. December 2: B8.

Mittal, Vikas and Jerome M. Katrichis. 2000. Distinctions Between New and Loyal Customers. Marketing Research. 12 (1): 27-32.

Mittal, Vikas, Pankaj Kumar and Michael Tsiros. 1999. Attribute Performance, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions Over Time: A Consumption System Approach. Journal of Marketing. 63 (April): 88-101.

Mittal, Vikas and Jerome M. Katrichis, Frank E. Forkin and Mark Konkel. 1993. Does Satisfaction with Multi-Attribute Products Vary Over Time? A Performance Based Approach. Advances in Consumer Research, Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John (eds.) Vol. 21, 412-417.

Modelski, George. 1998. Globalization: key concepts, in Fred W. Riggs, World Sociology Congress in Montreal, July 1998, http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/glocon.htm

Nagashima, A. 1970. A Comparison of Japanese and US Attitudes Toward Foreign Products. Journal of Marketing. 34 (1): 68-74.

Nagashima, A. 1977. A Comparative “Made In” Product Image Survey Among Japanese Businessmen. Journal of Marketing. 41 (3): 95-100.

Ohmae, Kenichi. 1991. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. New York: Harper Perennial.

Papadopoulos, N. and L. A. Heslop Eds. 1993. Product country images: Impact and role in international marketing. Binghampton. NY: Haworth Press.

Peterson R.A. and A.J.P. Jolibert. 1995. A Meta-Analysis of Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies. 26 (4): 883-900.

Raju, P. S. 1977. Product Familiarity, Brand Name and Price Influences on Product Evaluation. Advances in Consumer Research. 4: 64-71.

Rogers, Everett, M. 1962. Diffusion  of Innovation. New York: Free Press.

Roth, M.S. and J.B. Romeo. 1992. Matching Product Category and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies. 23 (3): 477-97.

Schütte, Hellmut. 1998. Asian Culture and the Global Consumer. Financial Times - Mastering Marketing. September 21 p.2