差異化營銷策略研究外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯

外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯原文及譯文文獻(xiàn)出處:DalmanM.TheResearchofBrandDifferentiationMarketingStrategy."InternationalJournalofMarketingStudies,2017,1(5):63-72.原文TheResearchofBrandDifferentiationMarketingStrategyDalmanM1ThePurposeofThisResearchAlthoughourknowledgeoftrivialattributeeffecthasbeengreatlyenhanced,howthetrivialattributeaffectsbrandevaluationhasneverbeenstudiedfromtheperspectiveofproductdevelopmentandmarketingstrategy.Ourresearchaimstofillthegapbyofferingempiricalevidencesfromtwostudies.Thegoalsofthispaperisfourthfolds;1)Canbrandsincreasetheirchoicelikelihoodbyaddingsometrivialattributes,2)Doesthiseffectdependonthenatureofthecategory(i.e.hedonicvs.utilitarian),3)Doesthetypeoftrivialattributes(hedonicvs.utilitarian)affecttheconsumerresponsetothesetrivialattributes,andfinally4)Howcanmarketingmanagerseffectivelycommunicateabrandwithtrivialattribute?Toreachthesegoals,inthefirststudy,wereviewtrivialattributeeffect,andtesthowitcreatesthebranddifferentiationinservicesector.Then,inthesecondstudy,wediscussabouttheevaluationmodeliterature,andtestthattheeffectwhethertrivialattributeismoresalientinjointevaluationorseparateevaluationmode.Finally,weconcludewithdiscussionandprovidesuggestionsforfurtherresearch.TheoreticalBackgroundTrivialAttributeEffectonServiceChoiceTrivialattributesaredefinedastheattributesthatdonotcreatemeaningfuldifferentiationinevaluationofalternatives(Broniarczyk&Gershoff,2003;Miljkovicetal.,2009).Consumerstreatthistrivialinformationintheadvantageofbrandsthatofferthemevenwhentheyareinformedbeforedecision-makingaboutthetriviality(Carpenteretal.,1994).BrownandCarpenter(2000)explainthisadvantagewiththereasonsbasedaccount.Theyarguethatconsumersprefertochooseonthebasisofeasilyjustified,cognitivelyavailablereasons(Brown&Carpenter,2000).Thus,whentheoptionscannotbechosenbasedonimportantattributes,consumersneedtorelyontrivialattributesthatcreatebranddifferentiation(Shafir,Simonson,&Tversky,1993).Thequestionaboutwhattoaddtotheofferingtoincreaseitsvalueisespeciallyimportantforservices(Devlin,1998),asitismoredifficulttocreateacompetitiveadvantageinserviceindustries(Storey&Easingwood,1998).Themainreasonisthatunlikephysicalgoods,servicesareintangibleandconsumersoftenfaceaproblemofidentifyingthenecessaryattributesinservicesforevaluation.Thus,theyenduponlyrelyingonbrandcomparisonsonthebasisofselectedattributes(Gabott&Hogg,1994;Rust&Chung,2006).Therefore,servicescreatemoreuncertaintyforconsumersthanphysicalgoodsatthepurchasestage.Whenadecisioncan'tbejustifiedonrelevantattributes,consumersformargumentsbasedontrivialattributesevenaftertheyaretoldaboutthetrivialityoftheattribute(Albrecht,Neumann,Haber,&Bauer,2011).Therefore,withtheamountofuncertaintyinservicesandthedifficultyofevaluatingattributesasmentionedabove,consumersarelikelytousetrivialattributeswhentheyarefacedwithanambiguouschoicesetevenaftertheyaretoldaboutthetriviality.Wepositthehypothesisasfollows;H1: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,theoutcomesofthesetwotypesofservicesarevalueddifferentlyastheutilitarianoutcomedependsonobjectivestandardswhereashedoniconesdependonsubjective(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,inseparateevaluationwhenoneisaskedtoratetheimportanceofsupportinggovernmentinterventionforsavingdolphinsoverpreventingskincanceramongfarmworks,thenumberofpeoplewhosupportsthegovernmentinterventionforsavingdolphinsissubstantial.However,inthejointevaluationmodewhenthesamepersonisaskedtocomparetheimportanceofdolphintothatofahumansidebyside(orjointly)themajorityofpeople'sanswerisobvioustosupportahuman.Thus,consumersinjointevaluationmodenotonlygreatlysavetheireffortsbutalsoincreaseaccuracyinchoicebecauseitiseasiertoidentifysimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweencompetingbrands.Thisevaluationstrategyfocusingonthedifferenceorsomethinguniquemakesthetrivialattributebecomesalientandevenmeaningful(Dhar&Sherman,1996).Takentogether,wepositthatbrandwithtrivialattributewillbeperceivedmorevaluable(i.e.,peoplearewillingtopaymore)inthejointevaluationmodethanitisintheseparateevaluationmode.H3:WillingnesstoPay(WTP)ishigherinthejointevaluationmodethanthatintheseparateevaluationmode.DiscussionCreatingbranddifferentiationhasbeencriticalmorethaneverinourglobalizedworld.Manymanufacturesofconsumerpackagegoodsmakeenormousmarketingeffortstodifferentiatetheirbrandsagainstcompetitorsoftenbysearchingandaddingnewornobleattributes.Animportantdecisiontomakeformarketingmanagersistodeterminewhatfeaturesshouldbeincluded.Inthisresearch,weintroducedanunusualbranddifferentiationstrategyusingthetrivialattributeeffect.Resultsfromtwoexperimentalstudiespointoutthefollowing;ifatrivialattributeaseasytoimplementasplayingmusicinbetweenclasssessionsforaGMATcourseordistributingfreeiceataMusicFestivalisoffered,itcanhelpserviceprovidersgaincompetitiveadvantageovertheircompetitors.Thiscanallowmanagerstobemorecreativeandstaycompetitiveinthemarket.Ourresultsalsoindicatethatthiseffectismorepronouncedinhedonicservicecategoriescomparedtotheutilitariancategories.Fromtheethicalperspective,offeringattributesthatdon'tcreatemeaningfuldifferenceforconsumersisnotdeceivingconsumersasourresultsindicatethattheeffectsoftrivialattributesholdevenafterconsumersaretoldaboutthetrivialityofthem.Moreover,consumersindicatedinourstudythattheyarenotonlyawareofthetrivialityoftheseattributesbuttheyalsothinktheyarenotusefulintheirdecision-making.Anotherresultwefoundthatsupportsthetrivialityoftheseattributesisthatthetypeoftrivialattribute(hedonic/utilitarian)doesnotmatter.Lastly,intermsofeffectivemarketingcommunicationstrategyrelyingontrivialattributeeffect,ourresultsrevealedthatthejointevaluationmodeincreasestheconsumer'swillingnesstopaymorethanthatoftheseparateevaluationmode.ImplicationsandLimitationsOurresearchhandlesboththeoreticalandpracticalimplications;theoreticallyitwilladdtotheserviceliteraturetheapplicabilityoftrivialattributes.Whileresearchontrivialattributessofarhasmainlyfocusedondifferentconsumergoodsincludingdownjackets,compactdiscplayers,pasta(Carpenteretal.,1994),coffee,andcologne(Brown&Carpenter,2000),wearenotawareofanyresearchthathasinvestigatedtrivialattributesinaservicecontext.Inoureffortstounderstandifusingtrivialattributeswouldhaveadifferentialeffectonhedonicvs.utilitarianservices,resultssuggestthatconsumersusedifferenttypesofinformationevaluatinghedonicvs.utilitarianservices(Batra&Ahtola,1991;Holbrook&Hirschman,1982)whentrivialattributesareevaluated.Managerially,itcanshowthemanagersapossiblyeasywaytogaincompetitiveadvantageoverthecompetitors.Considerthemusicfestivalexampleabove.Usinganequipmentfromtheplacewherethemusicwasoriginatedisnotnecessarilythebestnorthemostexpensivechoice.However,itcanpossiblygivetheorganizerstheedgeoverthecompetitorfestivalsifpeopleconsiderthisinformationpositivelyintheirdecision-making.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.譯文品牌差異化營銷策略研究達(dá)爾曼·馬庫斯1研究目的盡管我們對于微小屬性的認(rèn)識大大加強(qiáng),從產(chǎn)品開發(fā)和營銷策略的角度來講，微小屬性如何影響品牌評估還尚未被研究過。我們的研究旨在從兩項(xiàng)研究提供的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)中填補(bǔ)這一缺口。本文的研究目標(biāo)為;1)通過提供一些微小屬性，品牌是否能增加他們選擇的可能性,2)這種影響是依靠品種的性質(zhì)嗎(即享樂主義和功利主義),3)微小的品質(zhì)類別是否(享樂主義和功利主義)影響消費(fèi)者對其的選擇，最后4)營銷經(jīng)理如何有效傳遞這些品牌的微小屬性?為了達(dá)到這些目標(biāo),在第一項(xiàng)研究中,我們審查微小的屬性效果和測試如何在服務(wù)業(yè)創(chuàng)造品牌的差異化。然后,在第二項(xiàng)研究中,我們討論一下評價(jià)模式，以及用聯(lián)合評價(jià)或單獨(dú)的評價(jià)模式測試效果是否更加突出。最后,我們通過討論得出結(jié)論，為進(jìn)一步的研究提供建議。2理論背景2.1微小屬性影響服務(wù)選擇微小屬性被定義為這種屬性在選擇評估中不會(huì)創(chuàng)建有意義的差異化(布朗尼克&格爾索夫,2003;科維奇,2009)。消費(fèi)者對待這種優(yōu)勢品牌的瑣碎信息，即使在決策之前被告知(卡彭特,1994)。布朗和卡彭特(2000)基于賬戶的原因解釋這一優(yōu)勢。他們認(rèn)為,消費(fèi)者更愿意選擇基礎(chǔ)上合理的,可用的認(rèn)知原因(布朗和卡彭特,2000)。因此,當(dāng)基于重要屬性的不能選擇,消費(fèi)者需要依靠微小屬性創(chuàng)建品牌差異化(沙菲爾,西蒙森tversky,1993)。對服務(wù)來講增加一些要素來提高它的價(jià)值尤為重要(德芙林,1998),因?yàn)樵诜?wù)行業(yè)它很難獲得競爭優(yōu)勢(斯托雷斯沃,1998)。主要原因是它不同于有形商品,服務(wù)是無形的,消費(fèi)者常常面臨的問題在于在服務(wù)評估中確定其屬性。因此,他們最終只能依靠在選擇屬性的基礎(chǔ)上比較品牌(吉沃特格,1994;魯斯特&鐘,2006)在采購階段，服務(wù)比有形商品要為消費(fèi)者創(chuàng)造更多的不確定性。因此,服務(wù)的不確定性和難以評估屬性如前所述,當(dāng)消費(fèi)者面臨一個(gè)模棱兩可的選擇時(shí)，他們很可能會(huì)使用簡單屬性。我們假定假設(shè)如下;服務(wù)提供者的選擇可能性在提供微小屬性時(shí)比未提供時(shí)高。與實(shí)體商品相比，服務(wù)的基礎(chǔ)是信息處理(拉斯特&鐘,2006)，信息如何處理取決于服務(wù)是功利主義還是享樂主義(赫斯曼霍爾&布魯克,1982)。根據(jù)巴特拉和恩特拉(1991)認(rèn)為,消費(fèi)者在選擇時(shí)有兩種達(dá)頓,1994年)而與功利主義服務(wù)相關(guān)的是“功能性”(邁爾斯,1998)。在選擇的背景下,這兩種類型的服務(wù)價(jià)值的結(jié)果不同的是功利主義的結(jié)果取決于客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而享樂的取決于主觀(酌情)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(博迪&麥吉爾,2010)。此外,伯堤和麥吉爾(2010)認(rèn)為,享樂主義的動(dòng)機(jī)是尋求“作為一個(gè)最終的自己”而功利主義的動(dòng)機(jī)是用來達(dá)到一個(gè)更高層次的目標(biāo)。我們認(rèn)為功利主義服務(wù)比享樂主義服務(wù)更容易引發(fā)焦慮、難以實(shí)現(xiàn)和具有不確定的目標(biāo)(拉撒路,1991)。在這種情況下,當(dāng)目標(biāo)是引發(fā)焦慮,微小屬性便更具影響力(肖,阿什沃斯,2011)。因此,我們預(yù)計(jì)享樂主義服務(wù)類別比功利主義服務(wù)類別的微小屬性的影響更加明顯。我們假定假設(shè)如下:服務(wù)提供者的優(yōu)勢在于，享樂服務(wù)相比功利主義的服務(wù)，其對于微小屬性的提供更加明顯。2.2營銷傳播策略使用微小屬性效果之前的研究文獻(xiàn)表明,比較是一個(gè)天然和強(qiáng)大的戰(zhàn)略,消費(fèi)者往往依賴它(庫克,亞尼塞夫斯基，庫尼亞，王爾德,2004;達(dá)爾，謝爾曼,1999)?？巳R爾(1998)表明,消費(fèi)者偏好的變化取決于產(chǎn)品介紹和評價(jià),具體來說,無論他們是單獨(dú)評估(單獨(dú)的評估模式)或共同評估(聯(lián)合評價(jià)模式)。因此,消費(fèi)者在聯(lián)合評估模式中不僅大大節(jié)省他們的努力,而且提高選擇的準(zhǔn)確度,因?yàn)樗歉菀鬃R別競爭品牌之間的異同。這種評價(jià)策略重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的是一些獨(dú)特或差異性的微小屬性，能使其變得顯著甚至有意義(達(dá)爾&謝爾曼,1996)。綜上所述，我們斷定聯(lián)合評估模式比在單獨(dú)的評估模式小品牌的微小屬性更有價(jià)值(即，人們愿意花更多的錢)。聯(lián)合評估模式比單獨(dú)評估模式中的支付意愿(高。3.討論在全球化的世界中，創(chuàng)造品牌的差異化，比以往任何時(shí)候都更重要。許多日用消費(fèi)品的生產(chǎn)型企業(yè)，通過搜尋