差异化营销策略研究外文文献翻译

外文文献翻译原文及译文文献出处:DalmanM.TheResearchofBrandDifferentiationMarketingStrategy."InternationalJournalofMarketingStudies,2017,1(5):63原文TheResearchofBrandDifferentiationMarketingStrategyDalmanM1ThePurposeofThisResearchAlthoughourknowledgeoftrivialattributeeffecthasbeengreatlyenhanced,howthetrivialattributeaffectsbrandevaluationhasneverbeenstudiedfromtheperspectiveofproductdevelopmentandmarketingstrategy.Ourresearchaimstofillthegapbyofferingempiricalevidencesfromtwostudies.Thegoalsofthispaperisfourthfolds;1)Canbrandsincreasetheirchoicelikelihoodbyaddingsometrivialattributes,2)Doesthiseffectdependonthenatureofthecategory(i.e.hedonicvs.utilitarian),3)Doesthetypeoftrivialattributes(hedonicvs.utilitarian)affecttheconsumerresponsetothesetrivialattributes,andfinally4)Howcanmarketingmanagerseffectivelycommunicateabrandwithtrivialattribute?Toreachthesegoals,inthefirststudy,wereviewtrivialattributeeffect,andtesthowitcreatesthebranddifferentiatinonservicesector.Then,inthesecondstudy,wediscussabouttheevaluationmodeliterature,andtestthattheeffectwhethertrivialattributeismorinjointevaluationorseparateevaluationmode.Finally,weconcludewithdiscussionandprovidesuggestionsforfurtherresearch.2.TheoreticalBackgroundTrivialAttributeEffectonServiceChoiceTrivialattributesaredefinedastheattributesthatdonotcreatemeaningfuldifferentiationinevaluationofalternatives(Bro&Gershoff,2003;Miljkovicetal.,2009).Consumerstreatthistrivialinformationintheadvantageofbrandsthatofferthemevenwhentheyareinformedbeforedecision-makingaboutthetriviality(Carpenteretal.,1994).BrownandCarpenter(2000)explainthisadvantagewiththereasonsbasedaccount.Theyarguethatconsumersprefertochooseonthebasisofeasilyjustified,cognitivelyavailablereasons(Brown&Carpenter,2000).Thus,whentheoptionscannotbechosenbasedonimportantattributes,consumersneedtorelyontrivialattributesthatcreatebranddifferentiation(Shafir,Simonson,&Tversky,1993).Thequestionaboutwhattoaddtotheofferingtoincreasitsvalueisespeciallyimportantforservices(Devlin,1998),asitismoredifficulttocreateacompetitiveadvantageinserviceindustries(Storey&Easingwood,1998).Themainreasonisthatunlikephysicalgoods,servicesareintangibleandconsumersoftenfaceaproblemofidentifthenecessaryattributesinservicesforevaluation.Thus,theyenduonlyrelyingonbrandcomparisonsonthebasisofselectedattributes(Ga&Hogg,1994;Rust&Chung,2006).Therefore,servicescreatemoreuncertaintyforconsumersthanphysicalgoodsatthepurchasestage.Whenadecisioncan'tbejustifiedonrelevantattributes,consumersfoargumentsbasedontrivialattributesevenaftertheyaretoldaboutthetrivialityoftheattribute(Albrecht,Neumann,Haber,&Bauer,2011Therefore,withtheamountofuncertaintyinservicesandthedifficultyofevaluatingattributesasmentionedabove,consumersarelikelytotrivialattributeswhentheyarefacedwithanambiguouschoiceseteaftertheyaretoldaboutthetriviality.WepositthehypothesisasH1:Thechoicelikelihoodofserviceproviderthatoffersatrivialattributewillbehigherthanthatdoesnotoffer.Comparedtophysicalgoods,servicesarebasedoninformationprocessing(Rust&Chung,2006)andhowtheinformationisprocesseddependsonwhethertheserviceisutilitarianorhedonic(Hirschman&Holbrook,1982).AccordingtoBatraandAhtola(1991),consumershavethesetwomotivesinachoicecontext.Hedonicservicesarerelatedto"fun"and"pleasure"(Babin,Darden,&Griffin,1994)whereasutilitarianservicesarerelatedto"functionality"(Strahilevitz&Myers,1998).Inachoicecontext,theoutcomesofthesetwotypesofsearevalueddifferentlyastheutilitarianoutcomedependsonostandardswhereashedoniconesdependonsubjective(discretionary)standards(Botti&McGill,2010).Moreover,BottiandMcGill(2010)arguethathedonicmotivesaresought"asanenditself"whereasutilitarianmotivesareusedtoreachahigher-levelgoal.Wearguethatutilitarianservicesaremoreanxietyprovokingthanhedonicservicesastheyincludeimportant,hardertoachieve,anduncertaingoals(Lazarus,1991).Andinsituations,whengoalsareanxietyprovoking,trivialattributesaremoreinfluential(Xiao,Dacin,&Ashworth,2011).Therefore,weexpecttheeffectoftrivialattributestobemorepronouncedinahedonicservicecategorythaninautilitarianservicecategory.Wepositthehypothesisasfollows:H2:Theadvantageofserviceproviderthatoffersatrivialattributewillbemorepronouncedforthehedonicservicescomparedtoutilitarianservices.MarketingCommunicationStrategyUsingTrivialAttributeEffectPriorliteraturehassuggestedthatcomparisonisanaturalandpowerfulstrategythatconsumersoftenrelyon(Cooke,Janiszewski,CunhaJr,Nasco,&DeWilde,2004;Dhar,Nowlis,&Sherman,1999).HseeandLeclerc(1998)suggestthatconsumerpreferencechangesdependingonhowproductsarepresentedandevaluated,specifically,whethertheyareevaluatedseparately(separateevaluationmode)orjointly(jointevaluationmode).Forexample,inseparateevaluationwhenoneisaskedtoratetheimportanceofsupportinggovernmentinterventiforsavingdolphinsoverpreventingskincanceramongfarmworks,thenumberofpeoplewhosupportsthegovernmentinterventionforsavingdolphinsissubstantial.However,inthejointevaluationmodewhenthesamepersonisaskedtocomparetheimportanceofdolphintothatofahumansidebyside(orjointly)themajorityofpeople'sanswerisobvioustosupportahuman.Thus,consumersinjointevaluationmodenotonlygreatlysavetheireffortsbutalsoincreaseaccuracyinchoicebecauseitiseasiertoidentifysimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweencompetingbrands.Thisevaluationstrategyfocusingonthedifferenceorsomethinguniquemakesthetrivialattributebecomesalientandevenmeaningful(Dhar&Sherman,1996).Takentogether,wepositthatbrandwithtrivialattributewillbeperceivedmorevaluable(i.e.,peoplearewillingtopaymore)inthejointevaluationmodethanitisintheseparateevaluationmode.H3:WillingnesstoPay(WTP)ishigherinthejointevaluationmodethanthatintheseparateevaluationmode.DiscussionCreatingbranddifferentiationhasbeencriticalmorethaneveringlobalizedworld.Manymanufacturesofconsumerpackagegoodsmakeenormousmarketingeffortstodifferentiatetheirbrandsagainstcompetitorsoftenbysearchingandaddingnewornobleattributes.Animportantdecisiontomakeformarketingmanagersistodeterminewhatfeaturesshouldbeincluded.Inthisresearch,weintroducedanunusualbranddifferentiationstrategyusingthetrivialattributeeffect.Resultsfromtwoexperimentalstudiespointoutthefollowing;ifatrivialattributeaseasytoimplementasplayingmusicinbetweenclasssessionsforaGMATcourseordistributingfreeiceataMusicFestivalisoffered,itcanhelpserviceprovidersgaincompetitiveadvantageovertheircompetitors.Thiscanallowmanagerstobemorecreativeandstaycompetitiveinthemarket.Ourresultsalsoindicatethatthiseffectismorepronouncedinhedonicservicecategoriescomparedtotheutilitariancategories.Fromtheethicalperspective,offeringattributesthatdon'tcreatemeaningfuldifferenceforconsumersisnotdeceivingconsumersasourresultsindicatethattheeffectsoftrivialattributesholdevenafterconsumersaretoldaboutthetrivialityofthem.Moreover,consumersindicatedinourstudythattheyarenotonlyawareofthetrivialityoftheseattributesbuttheyalsothinktheyarenotusefutheirdecision-making.Anotherresultwefoundthatsupportsofthetrivialtheseattributesisthatthetypeoftrivialattribute(hedonic/utilitarian)doesnotmatter.Lastly,intermsofeffectivemarketingcommunicationstrategyrelyingontrivialattributeeffect,ourresultsrevealedthatthejointevaluationmodeincreasestheconsumer'swillingnesstopaymorethanthatoftheseparateevaluationmode.ImplicationsandLimitationsOurresearchhandlesboththeoreticalandpracticalimplications;theoreticallyitwilladdtotheserviceliteraturetheapplicabilityoftrivialattributes.Whileresearchontrivialattributessofarhasmainlyfocusedondifferentconsumergoodsincludingdownjackets,compactdiscplayers,pasta(Carpenteretal.,1994),coffee,andcologne(Brown&Carpenter,2000),wearenotawareofanyresearchthathasinvestigatedtrivialattributesinaservicecontext.Inoureffortstounderstandifusingtrivialattributeswouldhaveadifferentialeffectonhedonicvs.utilitarianservices,resultsuggestthatconsumersusedifferenttypesofinformationevaluatinghedonicvs.utilitarianservices(Batra&Ahtola,1991;Holbrook&Hirschman,1982)whentrivialattributesareevaluated.Managerially,itcanshowthemanagersapossiblyeasywaytogaincompetitiveadvantageoverthecompetitors.Considerthemusicfestivalexampleabove.UsinganequipmentfromtheplacewherethemusicwasoriginatedisnotnecessarilythebestnorthemostexpensiveHowever,itcanpossiblygivetheorganizerstheedgeoverthecompetitorfestivalsifpeopleconsiderthisinformationpositivelyintheirdecisionmaking.Lastly,fromtheperspectiveofmarketingcommunicationstrategy,attributesthemselvescanalsobeeitherutilitarianorhedonicanditwillbeuptothemarketerstochoosethetypeofthetrivialattributesfortheirofferings.However,thisbecomesimportantonlyifthischoiceaffectstheconsumerresponsetotheofferingandhelpsthemarketerInservices,oneofthemainreasonswhyitisdifficulttocreateandmaintainadvantageisthefactthatinservices,competitorscaneasilycopytheaspectsofsuccessfulofferings(Storey&Easingwood,1998).Thisthenputspressureonservicemanagerstostaycompetitiveinthemarketplace.Ourresearchfindingscontributetotheservicesector.Servicesectorcompromises68%ofUSGDPand80%oftheUSjobs(OfficeoftheUSTradeRepresentative)andthisdistributionissimilarinalldevelopedcountriesasthereisapositivecorrelationbetweenGDPandtheshareoftheservicesectorinaneconomy(Sherom&Saubbotina,2000).Whiletheservicesectorhassuchanimportantshareintheeconomy,atthesametime,servicemanagementisdifferentfrommanaginggoods(Mittal,1999;Parasuraman,Zeithaml,&Berry,1985)anditismoredifficult(Storey&Easingwood,1998).Moreover,theconsumerbehaviorforservicesisalsodifferentthanitisforgoodsanditismoredifficultforconsumerstomakeachoicealongthealternatives(Gabott&Hogg,1994).Insum,allthesefactorsaboutservicesmakeitanimportantdomaintounderstandifcompaniescanusetrivialattributestogainadvantageinthemarketplaceandourresearchshedslighttomanagersintheservicesector.译文品牌差异化营销策略研究达尔曼〃马库斯研究目的尽管我们对于微小属性的认识大大加强,从产品开发和营销策略的角度来讲，微小属性如何影响品牌评估还尚未被研究过。我们的研究旨在从两项研究提供的经验证据中填补这一缺口。本文的研究目标为;1)通过提供一些微小属性，品牌是否能增加他们选择的可能性,2)这种影响是依靠品种的性质吗(即享乐主义和功利主义),3)微小的品质类别是否(享乐主义和功利主义)影响消费者对其的选择，最后4)营销经理如何有效传递这些品牌的微小属性?为了达到这些目标,在第一项研究中,我们审查微小的属性效果和测试如何在服务业创造品牌的差异化。然后,在第二项研究中,我们讨论一下评价模式，以及用联合评价或单独的评价模式测试效果是否更加突出。最后,我们通过讨论得出结论，为进一步的研究提供建议。理论背景2.1微小属性影响服务选择微小属性被定义为这种属性在选择评估中不会创建有意义的差异化(布朗尼克&格尔索夫,2003;科维奇,2009)。消费者对待这种优势品牌的琐碎信息，即使在决策之前被告知(卡彭特,1994)。布朗和卡彭特(2000)基于账户的原因解释这一优势。他们认为,消费者更愿意选择基础上合理的,可用的认知原因(布朗和卡彭特,2000)。因此,当基于重要属性的不能选择,消费者需要依靠微小属性创建品牌差异化(沙菲尔,西蒙森tversky,1993)。对服务来讲增加一些要素来提高它的价值尤为重要(德芙林,1998),因为在服务行业它很难获得竞争优势(斯托雷&伊斯沃,1998)。主要原因是它不同于有形商品,服务是无形的,消费者常常面临的问题在于在服务评估中确定其属性。因此,他们最终只能依靠在选择属性的基础上比较品牌(吉沃特&霍格,1994;鲁斯特&钟,2006)。因此,在采购阶段，服务比有形商品要为消费者创造更多的不确定性。因此,服务的不确定性和难以评估属性如前所述,当消费者面临一个模棱两可的选择时，他们很可能会使用简单属性。我们假定假设如下;H1:服务提供者的选择可能性在提供微小属性时比未提供时高。与实体商品相比，服务的基础是信息处理(拉斯特&钟,2006)，信息如何处理取决于服务是功利主义还是享乐主义(赫斯曼霍尔&布鲁克,1982)。根据巴特拉和恩特拉(1991)认为,消费者在选择时有两种动机。与享乐服务相关的是“有趣”和“快乐”(格里芬，巴班,达顿,1994年)而与功利主义服务相关的是“功能性”(迈尔斯,1998)。在选择的背景下,这两种类型的服务价值的结果不同的是功利主义的结果取决于客观标准而享乐的取决于主观(酌情)标准(博迪&麦吉尔,2010)。此外,伯堤和麦吉尔(2010)认为,享乐主义的动机是寻求“作为一个最终的自己”而功利主义的动机是用来达到一个更高层次的目标。我们认为功利主义服务比享乐主义服务更容易引发焦虑、难以实现和具有不确定的目标(拉撒路,1991)。在这种情况下,当目标是引发焦虑,微小属性便更具影响力(肖,阿什沃斯,2011)。因此,我们预计享乐主义服务类别比功利主义服务类别的微小属性的影响更加明显。我们假定假设如下:H2:服务提供者的优势在于，享乐服务相比功利主义的服务，其对于微小属性的提供更加明显。2.2营销传播策略使用微小属性效果之前的研究文献表明,比较是一个天然和强大的战略,消费者往往依赖它(库克,亚尼塞夫斯基，库尼亚，王尔德,2004;达尔，谢尔曼,1999)。克莱尔(1998)表明,消费者偏好的变化取决于产品介绍和评价,具体来说,无论他们是单独评估(单独的评估模式)或共同评估(联合评价模式)。因此,消费者在联合评估模式中不仅大大节省他们的努力,而且提高选择的准确度,因为它是更容易识别竞争品牌之间的异同。这种评价策略重点关注的是一些独特或差异性的微小属性，能使其变得显著甚至有意义(达尔&谢尔曼,1996)。综上所述，我们断定联合评估模式比在单独的评估模式小品牌的微小属性更有价值(即，人们愿意花更多的钱)。H3:联合评估模式比单独评估模式中的支付意愿(WTP)高。3.讨论在全球化的世界中，创造品牌的差异化，比以往任何时候都更重要。许多日用消费品的生产型