Dear all
The latest issue of International Marketing Review (28.5) has published, and the table of contents follows. Can I draw your attention to the editorial (copied in full below), which explains the approach taken in this issue: the articles all examine
country of origin (COO) research, and engage positively or negatively with recent criticisms of COO in the international marketing literature.
Some of these points are also raised in the final IMR issue of 2011 (28.6), currently available in Emerald’s pre-publication format
here.
Best regards
Martyn
Dr Martyn Lawrence
Senior Publisher
TABLE OF CONTENTS – IMR 28.5
Article Title: “What? I thought Samsung was Japanese”: accurate or not, perceived country of origin matters
Authors: Peter Magnusson, Stanford A. Westjohn, Srdan Zdravkovic
Article Type: Research paper
Keywords: Brand evaluation, Brand origin recognition accuracy, Consumer behaviour, Country of origin, Global branding, Global marketing, Hierarchical linear modelling
Pages: 454-472
Article Title: Resolving the impasse regarding research on the origins of products and brands
Authors: Saeed Samiee
Article Type: General review
Keywords: Brand origin, Consumer behaviour, Country of origin, International marketing research, Marketing strategy
Pages: 473-485
Article Title: The shift from manufacturing to brand origin: suggestions for improving COO relevance
Authors: Jean-Claude Usunier
Article Type: Viewpoint
Keywords: Brand names, Brands, Country of origin, Language, Marketing strategy, Product image
Pages: 486-496
Article Title: Further clarification on how perceived brand origin affects brand attitude: A reply to Samiee and Usunier
Authors: Peter Magnusson, Stanford A. Westjohn, Srdan Zdravkovic
Article Type: Viewpoint
Keywords: Consumer attitudes, Consumer behaviour, Country of origin, Perception
Pages: 497-507
Article Title: The relationship between country-of-origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions: A test of alternative perspectives
Authors: Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Bodo Schlegelmilch, Dayananda Palihawadana
Article Type: Research paper
Keywords: Brand image, Consumer behaviour, Country of origin
Pages: 508-524
Editorial
(John W Cadogan)
Country of origin (COO) has become something of a hot topic for international marketing researchers in recent years, and it shows little sign of abating in popularity. The International Marketing Review receives a high number of paper submissions
that deal with the COO topic, and in recent years, has published many of these, has devoted two special issues to the topic of COO (volume 25, issue 4, 2008 and volume 27, issue 4, 2010), and has bestowed a best paper award to a manuscript addressing an important
COO-related issue (see Riefler and Diamantopoulos, 2007). However, recent contributions to the COO literature have thrown up some criticism of the prevailing research approaches used in the COO field, arguing that COO may not be that important after all (e.g.
Samiee et al., 2005), and to ask whether COO researchers are getting it wrong in their methods and in the kinds of questions that they are seeking to answer (Samiee, 2009).
The first paper in this issue, by Magnusson, Westjohn and Zdravkovic, addresses these concerns head on. The authors argue that consumers’ perceptions of the country that they perceive a brand to originate from affect their attitudes towards the brand,
regardless of whether these perceptions of brand origin are accurate, and that this has implications for managers who may need to manage COO image within their broader marketing strategy. Magnusson et al.'s purpose here, in addition to providing guidance
to marketing managers, is to confirm COO as an important research domain.
The paper by Samiee is written as a direct response to Magnusson et al.'s contribution. Samiee argues that much of the research undertaken into origin issues is athreoretic, is unimportant, and lacks managerial relevance. As an alternative, Samiee
suggests that the notion of Brand Origin (BO) is a more valid issue in terms of managerial importance, overcoming many of the weaknesses that COO poses. Samiee goes on to argue that the big question that researchers need to focus on now is whether COO or BO
actually influence consumers’ behaviour, and reflect on the kinds of research design that are needed to generate valid insights into COO/BO issues.
Usunier also writes his paper as a direct response to Magnusson et al.'s paper. Usunier likewise believes that researchers should refocus on the issue of brand origin, and its associated notions, such as country of brand, brand origin recognition
accuracy (BORA), and confidence in brand origin assessment, and argues that this shift should occur at the expense of traditional COO notions such as country of manufacture and country of design. Usunier is concerned that the Magnusson et al. paper overlooks
or downplays the brand origin questions that are so important. The paper concludes with the observation that future research must investigate the causes of BORA.
Magnusson, Westjohn and Zdravkovic provide a response to the two comment pieces by Samiee and by Usunier. They argue that much of what Samiee and Usunier argue is implicit or explicit in their original paper (e.g. brand origin is an important route for
future research): as such, they conclude that there is less disagreement than initially appears to be the case. The paper also presents arguments refuting the conceptual and methodological criticisms levelled at them by Samiee and Usunier. The authors conclude
by reflecting on some of the questions that future researchers must consider.
The final paper in this issue is by Schlegelmilch, Diamantopoulos and Palihawadana. These authors are motivated by the recent criticisms of COO research, and seek to determine the relative importance of country of origin image and brand image in terms
of consumers’ intentions to buy specific Chinese and US brands. The authors conclude that their findings show that COO is an important driver of brand image and, as such, COO image drives purchase intentions indirectly through brand image. For Schlegelmilch
and colleagues, the study provides evidence that COO research criticism is largely unfounded, and that COO is a relevant construct worthy of continued research interest.
Readers of these five papers are advised to pick their way through each paper carefully – they all contain many excellent observations and arguments. They also provide somewhat contradictory views on the relevance of the COO construct, and the direction
that COO researchers should head in.
