Return to Home Page
1997
Cross-Cultural Views of Reputation
by Paul Herbig* and John Milewicz**
Abstract
Reputation is consistency of actions. Reputation has a large impact in marketing. However, do all cultures view reputation the same way? Why would some nationalities value it more highly than others? And what are the cultural parameters that would explain such differences? This paper reports the results of a survey of multinational companies of reputation and the uses and influences of reputation in their marketing activities.
Market Signaling and Marketing Signals
Porter (1990, page 75) suggests that a “market signal is any action by a competitor that provides a direct or indirect indication of its intentions, motives, goals or internal situation.” Likewise Heil and Robertson (1991) define competitive market signals as ‘announcements or previews of potential actions intended to convey information or to gain information from competitors.’ We define a marketing signal as a marketing activity that provides information beyond the activity itself and which reveals insights into the unobservable. A signaling activity could be a price reduction, a new marketing campaign, or the building of a new plant (Gerstner, 1985). The signal could indicate the intent of the firm to pursue an aggressive strategy of market penetration or to enter into another market segment. A marketing signal alerts competitors to those features of a marketing activity which communicates the firm's intentions, motives or commitments. Marketing signals appear in advertising (higher advertising expenditures signal high quality products since products with high quality sell in higher quantities and high quantities allow advertising expenditures to be spread across more units--Kihlstrom and Riordan 1984) and pricing theory (higher prices signal high quality goods since if consumers are willing to buy the product at that price, the product must be worth the price asked Gerstner, 1985 ; Curry and Riesz, 1988). In essence, Marketing signals convey information concerning product quality, reputation or intentions of competitors.
A cue must meet certain criteria before it can be considered a true signal. First, a signal must be transmitted by someone who has the ability to alter the nature and intensity of the signal. Second, a signal is defined as an easy-to-acquire, extrinsic informational cue. It is not part of a product itself, but a piece of information about the product that a user can search out, obtain, and process with minimal effort and energy. Third, a signal can be used to form inferences concerning quality and value. Since it is not an intrinsic part of the product and it does not contain detailed information about the product, a signal can only provide the basis for making inferences about the product’s true features. It cannot tell buyers the absolute truth about those intrinsic features. Consequently, a signal could lead some users to infer a product is high in quality and value, while leading other customers to infer the opposite (Spence, 1974).
The use of signaling enables firms which signal and the industries which the firms comprise, to gain additional profits than if signaling were prohibited or limited (Herbig and Milewicz, 1993). A study of antitrust and collusion arising from the electrical equipment markets during the 1950's indicated it was not conspiratorial meetings but price signaling which appeared to have raised turbine generator profit/sales ratios (Lean, Ogur, and Rogers, 1985). A review of the U.S. antitrust suit against IBM indicated that signaling was a major factor in IBM's success at obtaining high level of profits (Pittman, 1984). Ford Motor Company, on Wednesday, July 15, 1992 announced price increases of 4 to 6% on most of its 1993 models. This increase, analysts believed, was Ford’s way of using its new-found status as the industry’s pricing leader to signal to rivals that now is not the time to start a costly war for market share (Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 16, 1992, B1).
The advantages of signaling are many. A sender can selectively "leak" information to its competitors via the act of signaling. The competitor can then improve its reaction by better understanding the sender’s intentions and the reasoning behind its marketing action (Engers, 1987). Each firm in an industry can interpret the other's actions, motives or commitments and improve its own choice of actions. If the sender is credible, the competitors’ reactions will be timely and consistent with the signal sent.The competitor can then assess and evaluate these signals easily, accurately, and respond quicker. Signaling, therefore, allows efficiency and ease of communications between firms, whether they be competitors, suppliers, or customers.
Potential reactions to an emitted signal depend upon the magnitude of the reaction (retaliatory or passive), the domain of the reaction (same product/market or in a different domain), and the elapsed time between signal reception and reaction). Other factors which influence a firm’s response include a firm’s size (smaller firms tend to imitate larger firm’s responses), market factors (the more differentiated the sender from the receiver, the less likely is a response) and the structure of the industry (the higher the number of competitors a firm has the less the cooperation; high fixed costs and economies of scale will cause more aggressive signal responses). The receiving firm’s interpretation process depends on the characteristics of the signal sent, that is whether it is a clear and unambiguous signal (sometimes firms may desire their signal to be unclear in order to gain information from competitors by encouraging competitors to reveal possible future reactions), is it able to be read quickly and with minimum error by receiving firms, is it consistent (does it confirm previous signals sent) and the receiver’s perception of the signal’s perceived aggressiveness (Heil and Robertson 1991).Cooperation may result or mainly does so from a threat of retaliation in case of non-cooperative behavior.
The benefits to the signal sender of increased information must exceed the potential costs. Some major benefits from signaling to competitors are preemption and the development of competitive norms of conduct. By signaling the competition, competitors will be discouraged from following. Dependent upon high entry barriers and high perceived commitment to the intended action must be credible. Signaling also important in search for industry norms on pricing, advertising sales, etc. related to sender’s level of market dominance and ability to enforce sanctions.
Costs are involved in all signaling behavior. Potential costs to the signaling firm could include competitive cuing (revealing intentions to competitors which can shorten lead times or initiate spoiler actions in marketplace), product-line cannibalization (customers delay purchases of the existing product line while waiting for the signaled action such as a new product), reputation (IBM has the reputation of using price reductions as signals for new product introductions), loss of face if the firm has subsequent difficulties in delivering the preannounced product as promised, and potential antitrust implications (collusion) (Heil, 1988).
Signaling is a learning process. A receiver reads the signal, interprets it in the light of experience, and reacts accordingly. The receiver adjusts his interpretation based upon the history of the sender and the previous transaction. This feedback loop fine tunes the process and the next time a signal is encountered the receptor can with more confidence judge the latest (next) signal.
Reputation
An important element that determines, to a large degree, if communication through signaling will be effective, is the signaling firm’s reputation. The value of a firm's overall reputation can be easily seen in its relationship to a firm's revenues: as a firm’s reputation increases, so does its sales (Shapiro 1982). A firm with a good overall reputation owns a valuable asset--"goodwill": brand names, corporate logos and customer loyalty. A firm’s reputation is embodied in its trademark which is viewed as a product specific marketable asset. Once a firm has established a reputation for producing a specific quality, consumers assume it continues to produce that quality unless experience reveals otherwise (Falvey, 1989). A reputation premium is often built into prices and related to product quality. Brand names can often be repositories for a firm's reputation: high quality performance on one product can often be transferred to another product via the brand name (Moorthy 1985). Furthermore, a firm’s favorable reputation may well translate into more credible ads (Goldberg and Hartwick 1990), better received brand names, more recognizable Corporate logos, and higher customer loyalty.
Reputation (Herbig and Milewicz, 1993, 1994, 1995; Herbig, Milewicz, and Golden 1993; Milewicz and Herbig 1993) is one of the primary contributors to perceived quality: quality of products manufactured by a company today is similar to the quality of products it manufactured in earlier periods or the quality of goods in a newly developed product line is similar to the quality of a company’s more established products (Shapiro, 1983; Wernerfelt, 1988). In the early years of a new product--especially a capital good, whose reliability and durability may take years to demonstrate--users and competitors often have little other information on which to base their actions. Having a good reputation also insures high quality firms will be larger and have more customers since fewer customers will depart from high quality firms in the long run and more will arrive because of word-of-mouth activity from other customers (Rogerson, 1983). The greater a company's reputation, the higher its chances are of getting a favorable first hearing for a new product and of getting early adoption of that product. Reputation becomes especially important as quality indicators in markets where product quality is unobservable at the time of purchase.
Credibility is the believability of an entity's intentions at a particular moment in time. That is, credibility is the trustworthiness or the extent of confidence in the source’s actually carrying out its intentions (Herbig and Milewicz 1993; Milewicz and Herbig 1993). Credibility is whether a company can be relied upon to do what it says it will do. Credibility is time sensitive; the entity's perceived credibility today can differ immensely from its perceived credibility by the same firm on a previous or future date. A firm that fails to follow-through loses its credibility; to regain credibility, it must again pay the high costs of reputation building. Once a reputation is established, the firm has ample incentive to maintain that reputation. For example, a public accounting firm charges fees that reflect its reputation for accuracy in verifying client firms' financial statements. Credibility would be lacking if the firm were to offer unverified statements. Loss of that credibility would mean fewer clients would be billed and hence less profits received.
Any signal will be evaluated by the receiver by, among other factors, the credibility of the source (Heil 1988a). The higher the credibility, the more persuasive the source (Krapfel 1985, Harmon and Corey 1982). Credibility must be before the message or action to have any significant effects (Sternthal, Dholakia and Leavitt 1978). To achieve credibility for high quality, a company must first develop a reputation for producing and delivering quality products (Bell 1984, Fitzgerald 1988). The quality of item produced in prior (previous) periods serve as a signal of quality of the goods produced in the current period. Credibility can only be established if sending false signals would be highly unattractive and costly to the signaling firm (such as warranties or guaranties).
To summarize the constructs, credibility is the believability of the current intention; reputation is a historical notion based upon the sum of the past behaviors of the entity. Both credibility and reputation are dynamic in nature; both are prone to change over time and are a function of time. Reputation and credibility are states; reputation building and credibility establishment are processes.
Signaling Internationally
An excellent example of signaling internationally can be seen in the Japanese takeover of the consumer electronics marketplace in the United States during the late seventies and early eighties. The Japanese aggressors were willingness to commit the long term resources which were vital to maintaining competitiveness while the U.S. companies were not. The U.S. competitors did not ‘signal’ strong commitment to defend market: i.e. they were unwilling to build new plants, did not update existing manufacturing technology, did not renew supply contracts, and did not meet distribution channel demands whereupon the Japanese did; and in addition, offered proliferation and constant improvement of their product lines, increased the number and quality of its management of sales force, and continued to increasingly fund R&D and new product development. Therefore customers alert to the signal given and the commitment (or lack of it in the case of the U.S. companies) increasingly hedged their bets by buying Japanese. In the end, U.S. firms eventually lost and the Japanese won (Kotler, Fahey, and Jatusrupitak, 1985).
Hypotheses
Context is a widely understood and accepted notion in international business. High Context societies are implicit, where how something is said is more important than the message itself. These include Japanese, Arabian, Latin American, and Latin European cultures. Low context societies are explicit where the meaning is predominantly in the message, the verbal, the written communications rather than the process. In high context societies, lawyers are less important, a person’s word is far more important; in low context societies, lawyers are very important and one must “get it in writing.” In high context societies, people prefer to be very close while in low context societies, people carry a bubble of private space with them and resent intrusions. In high context societies, responsibility for organizational error is taken by the highest level while it is pushed to the lowest level in low context societies. Competitive bidding is common and norm in low context societies while infrequent and rare in high context societies. Negotiations are lengthy in high context societies due tot he time necessary for parties to get to know each other; in low context societies they tend to proceed much quicker, getting down to business in short order. High context firms place greater emphasis on the personal relationship, in the rapport building than do low context firm, sometimes to the extent of relying on verbal promises and handshakes as the basis of business contracts.
High context societies due to their overreliance on personal relationships and rapport-building should emphasize and give greater weight to the reputational aspects of a relationship than should low-context societies. Rather than contractual obligations and the legalistic interpretation of the written word, the relationship, a man’s word is his bond, a handshake suffices for many deals in high context cultures. Under such conditions, the reputation of the other side becomes the critical element in the culmination of the deal and the success of the endeavor. Therefore, high-context societies should place greater efforts on establishing their own reputation, place more emphasis on the other party’s reputation when pursuing deals with another firm, and constantly examine the competitive environment for reputational signals more often and in greater frequency than lower (more overt) cultures. We thereby proposed the following hypotheses linking reputation and context:
Hypothesis 1) High Context societies should be more receptive and sensitive to reputational factors than low context societies.
Hypothesis 2) High Context societies should take greater efforts to establish and maintain corporate reputation than do low context societies.
Hypothesis 3) A firm’s own rating of its perceived reputation should match that of its perceived level of success in the marketplace.
Methodology:
Data for this study was collected by mail survey. A random sample of 2000 companies was obtained from several industrial directories of multinationals serving the United States. Multinationals were from four separate cultural groups: Latin American (Mexican, Brazil), East Asian (Japanese, Mainland Chinese, Taiwan, Hong Kong), European (German, Italian, French), and North American (United States and Canadian). The headquarters of the multinational was used to determine geographic segmentation. A personalized cover letter with university letterhead was utilized to provide legitimacy. The surveys were personally addressed to marketing managers. Nearly 400 responses were received, of which 369 were usable for a response rate of 18.5%. Telephone follow-up of a sample of non-respondents indicated no difference between respondents and non-respondents.
Information of importance to this study was gathered via a 5 point bipolar horizontal scale. Respondents were asked to rate various statements on how they perceived their company and how the market perceived their company. Respondents were then asked to rate various informational transmissions techniques per their usage as a company, importance to the market, whether they monitored competitor usage of these techniques, and how quick/severe their reactions were to competitor information from these techniques. Finally, respondents were asked to rate a set of attributes on perception of importance to company and reputation as they perceived it and the market perceived the company. Questions pertaining to organizational characteristics were also asked. Appropriate statistical techniques were used to analyze the data.
Table 1 shows the Profile of the Organizational Respondents. Table 4 provides a sample of the questionnaire used.
------------------------------------INSERT TABLE 1 APPROXIMATELY HERE---------------------
------------------------------------INSERT TABLE 4 APPROXIMATELY HERE---------------------
Results
As generally classified, the East Asian cultures and the Latin American cultures are high context while the European and Northern American cultures are rated as low context. According to the hypotheses, high context cultures, that is the East Asian and Latin American respondents, should perceive as higher value the reputation construct than the Low Context (European and North American) cultures.
Tables 2a and 2b provide a synopsis of the results. In general, as can be seen with the results, the East Asian and Latin American respondents rated reputational attributes consistently higher than the European and North American respondents in terms of their importance to success in industry. In particular, Latin American respondents rated consistency of company behavior in the marketplace, historically a safe vendor, and being a good competitor substantially and significantly higher than all the other respondents. East Asian respondents rated clear and concise communications, believability, and industry leadership consistently higher than European and North American respondents. European respondents rated responsiveness and character as lower in importance in success than did other respondents.
Table 2b provided a report on how respondents viewed specific attributes towards success in the marketplace. Results mirrored that found in Question 1 and reported in Table 2a. East Asian respondents rated state of the art technology, image, and quality of product highest while giving price competitiveness a low rating. Latin American firms rated price competitiveness highest as well as promotional/advertising effects and packaging while rating willingness to stand behind product and level of customer service lowest. European respondents rated price competitiveness highest while corporate image lowest with packaging and advertising/promotional efforts also extremely low. North American firms rated customer service highest; they believed their market perceived their firms as having highest delivery and image and willingness to stand behind product while giving the lowest importance weights to technology.
Latin American respondents and East Asian respondents both clearly rated Overall Rating of Corporate Reputation as perceived importance to the Marketplace significantly higher than North American and European respondents (Question 19). Thus, the results verify the proposed ordering (High context: East Asian and Latin American highest with Low Context European and North American lowest) in rated importance of reputational attributes in success in the marketplace. Therefore, hypotheses one and two are confirmed.
The picture changes when respondents are asked to evaluate their own firm, that is, to rate how the market perceived their own firm. As expected, East Asian respondents rated their own firm’s perception highest in information interchange, quality, and industry leadership. They also rated their firms highest in, not unexpectedly, quality, technology, and on time delivery and among the highest in nearly every other category. North American firms rated their own firm’s perception highest in reliability, overall character, and dependability. European respondents rated their firms low in every category. They did rate themselves relatively high on price competitiveness.
The most surprising result was Latin American respondents who rated their firm lowest without exception in every category, substantially and significantly so in safe vendor, overall character, reliability, good competitor and dependability. Latin American respondents rated their firms lowest in overall reputation. They rated their perceptions as lowest for every attribute, especially customer service and image, except price competitiveness, which they surprisingly rated themselves highest. While indicating their recognition of the importance of the reputation construct and the individual attributes to success in the marketplace, the Latin American respondents were simultaneously rating themselves lowest on their firm’s perception in the marketplace. Hence, hypotheses three, even though predicting three of the four groupings, must be considered marginally confirmed in lieu of the Latin American findings.
Management Implications
The level of context of a culture or cultural group does appear to be related positively to the importance of reputation and its associated attributes to success in the marketplace. High context cultures such as as East Asia and Latin American cultures which rely more on reputation do place a premium on the construct. As hypothesized, reputation is viewed as more important and more important to success in the marketplace for high context cultures than for low context cultures. The implication of this confirmation for marketers is for firms who deal or plan to deal with high context cultures must recognize the importance of reputation to firms from high context cultures and must plan accordingly. Since relationships are important to High context cultures and accordingly goodwill and reputation, those firms who which to pursue and maintain relationships with firms from high context cultures should take especial care and attention to create and maintain high levels of reputation to maximize potential successful relationships with high context culture firms.
The anomaly in the findings requires analysis. The Latin American respondents, as hypothesized, understand and rate highly reputation as a primary factor towards success in the marketplace. However, almost within the same breath, without exception, those same firms indicate the perception of their firm in the marketplace is significantly lower (lowest) than other groupings. This could evolve from perceived inferiority to firms in the developed world. Or it could be related to actual knowledge and acceptance of the firm’s poorer performance vis-a-vis firms in the developed countries.
Since the European, East Asian (Japan), and North American countries are all industrialized, perhaps the reason for the Latin American low ratings is not due to culture but to a lack of sophistication, a lack of economic development compared to the other three regions. Many Latin American countries have traditionally had high barriers to entry which have allowed inefficient national monopolies to dominate in the local economies. These companies, although understanding the need for high reputation to succeed in the market (due to the high contextual aspects of the local culture), also realistically accept the fact that compared to other international firms that provide the same products or service, its own firm produces less than global quality products (being a monopolist) and that its customers agree, and hence the local marketplace perceives the firm in a less than highly reputable degree. However, as long as they need not be forced into changing (that is, as long as they are protected from outside competition), the situation (and the anomaly) will remain. Nonetheless, one can suspect that given increasingly free trade and the lowering of barriers, either the firms must upgrade to compete or they will eventually give way to higher quality, higher reputable international firms within the same industry. Thus, in the long run, the factors responsible for this anomaly can be expected to disappear and along with them the anomaly.
REFERENCES
Bagwell, Kyle and Michael H. Riordan, (1991), “High and Declining Prices
Signal Product Quality,” American Economic Review, volume 81, number 1 (March), 224-239
Bell, Chip (1984),"Building a Reputation for Training Effectiveness"Training and Development Journal, 38 (May) 50-54
Black, Jane and George Bulkley (1988),"The Role of Strategic Information Transmission in a Bargaining Model,"Economic Journal (UK),98 (390),50-57
Bloom, Paul N. and Torger Reve (1990), “Transmitting Signals to Consumers for Competitive Advantage”, Business Horizons, July/ August, 55-66
Curry and Riesz(1988),"Prices and Price Quality Relationships: A Longitudinal Analysis,"Journal of Marketing, 52/1 (January),36-51
Dholokia, Ruby Roy and Sternthal, Brian(1977) ,"Highly Credible Sources: Persuasive Facilitators Persuasive Liabilities",Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March)223-232
Eliashberg, Jehoshua and Thomas S. Robertson (1988), “New Product Preannouncing Behavior: A Market Signaling Study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Volume XXV (August), 282-292
Engers, Maxim(1987),"Signaling with Many Signals,"Econometrica,, 55(May),663-674
_____________and Luis Fernandez (1987),"Market Equilibrium with Hidden Knowledge and Self Selection," Econometrica, 55,(March),425-439
Falvey, Rodney E. (1989) “Trade, Quality Reputations and Commercial Policy,” International Economic Review, Volume 30, number 3 August, 607-628
Fitzgerald, Thomas J.,(1988),"Understanding the Differences and Similarities between Services and Products to Exploit your Competitive Advantage," Journal of Services Marketing, 2(Winter) pg 25-30
Garda, Robert A. (1993), “How to Avoid a Price War, The Wall Street Journal . Monday May 10, 1993, Page A10.
Gerstner,Eitan (1985) ,"Do Higher Prices Signal Higher Quality?" Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May) 209-215
Harmon,Robert R. and Kenneth Corey (1982),"The Persuasive Effects of Source Credibility in Buy Lease Situations,"Journal of Marketing Research, 19(May) 255-260
Heil, Oliver P. and Rockney G. Walters (1993), “Explaining Competitive Reactions to New Products: An Empirical Signaling Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, volume 10, number 1, 53-65
Heil, Oliver and Thomas S. Robertson (1991), “Toward a Theory of Competitive Marketing Signaling: A Research Agenda,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 12, number 6 (September), 403-418
Herbig, Paul and John Milewicz (1995), “Reputation and Brands,” Journal of Consumer Marketing (Fall) 10/3
Herbig, Paul, John Milewicz, and James Golden (1994), “ A Model of Reputation Creation and Destruction, Journal of Business Research
Herbig, Paul A. and John Milewicz (1994), “Model of Reputation and its importance to brand managers,” Journal of Brand and Product Management
Herbig and Milewicz, (1994), “Signaling in Services,” Journal of Services Marketing
Kelley, Craig A. (1988), “An Investigation of Consumer Product Waranties as Market Signals of Product Reliability,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, volume 16, number 2 (Summer), 72-80
Kihlstrom, Richard E. and Michael H. Riordan (1984),"Advertising as a Signal," Journal of Political Economy,92 (3),427-450
Kotler, Philip, Liam Fahey, S. Jatusrupitak (1985), New Competition , Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ
Krapfel, Robert E.,Jr.(1985), "An Advocacy Behavior Model of Organizational Buyers' Vendor Choice," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Fall) 51-59
Levitt,Theodore (1967),"Communications and Industrial Selling," Journalof Marketing, Vol 31 (april) pg 15-21
Milde, Hellmuth and John Riley (1988),"Signaling in credit markets,"Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(February), 101-129
Milewicz, John and Paul Herbig (1993), “Reputation and Sales Force Success,” Marketing Intelligence and Planning
Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts((1986),"Prices and Advertising Signals of Product Quality,"Journal of Political Economy, 94 (August), 796-82
Moorthy, K. Sridhar (1985), “Using Game Theory to Model Competition”, Journal of Marketing Research, Volume XXII (August), 262-282
Morris, Richard D. (1987),"Signaling, Agency Theory and Accounting Policy Choice,"Accounting and Business Research, 18 (Winter), 47-56
Riley, John G.(1975),"Competitive Signaling",Journal of Economic Theory, X (August) 174-186
Shapiro,Carl (1983), "Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(November) 659-679
_____________(1982)," Consumer Information, Product Quality, and Seller Reputation,"Bell Journal of Economics,13,20-35
Sobel, Joel(1985)," A Theory of Credibility," Review of Economic Studies, 52,557-573
Spence, A.M.(1974),Market Signaling: Information Structure of Job Markets and Related Phenomena, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press
Sternthal, Brian, Ruby Dholakia and Clark Leavitt (1978),"ThePersuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response,"Journal ofConsumer Research, 4 (March) pg 252-260
Weigelt, Keith and Colin Camerer (1988), “Reputation and Corporate Strategy: A Review of Recent Theory and Applications,” Strategic Management Journal, volume 9, 1988, 443-454
Wernerfelt, Birger (1988), “Umbrella branding as a signal of new product quality: an example of signaling by posting a bond”,RAND Journal of Economics, vol 19 no 3 (Autumn), 458-467
Wiener, Joshua Lyle (1985), “Are Warranties Accurate Signals of Product Reliability?”, Journal of Consumer Research, volume 12 (September), 245-255
Wilson, Robert (1985),"Reputations in Games and Markets," in Game Theoretic Models of Bargaining, by A.E. Roth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Wolinsky, Asher (1983),"Prices as Signals of Product Quality,"Review of Economic Studies ,50,647-658
Table 1: Organizational Profile
Organizational Profile (368)
Geographical Distribution # %
North American 109 30
Far East 82 23
Europe 94 26
Latin America 76 21
Type of Business # %
Manufacturing 209 58
Services 146 41
Customer Type
Industrial 169 50
Consumer Durable 63 18
Consumer Non-durable 96 28
Both I-C 13 4
Revenues
Small (<$50 m) 158 44
Mid-Sized (50-999m) 122 33
Large (>$1B) 81 23
Years in Business
New (<10) 73 20
Mid-Aged (10-50) 150 41
Older (>50) 81 23
Number of Employees
Few (<50) 97 26
Many (50-500) 125 34
Myriad (>500) 145 40
Number of Locations
One 117 32
Few (2-10) 140 38
Many (>10) 110 30
Signaling Uses
Leak Information 36
Warn Competition 28
Alert Customers 295
Inform Suppliers 117
Other 45
Table 2a: Means Comparison
Question Far East Europe Latin American North American F score P level
Importance to Success for each Reputational Attribute
1a 4.14 4.15 4.36 4.21 .6 .57
1b 3.52 3.32 4.02* 3.32 4.7 .002
1c 4.44 4.21 4.18 4.21 1.11 .34
1d 4.62 4.24* 4.7 4.69 5.87 .0006
1e 4.27 4.31 4.18 4.35 .73 .53
1f 4.32 4.05 4.12 4.12 1.28 .22
1g 3.64 3.7 4.19* 3.74 2.9 .03
1h 4.12 *3.6 4.16 4.18 2.8 .03
1j 4.06 4.01 4.17 3.96 .45 .71
1k 4.48 4.56 4.36 4.42 .79 .49
1l 4.1* 3.60 3.64 3.61 2.7 .03 1m 4.12 4.05 4.29 4.12 .59 .61
1n 3.40 3.35 3.87* 3.39 3.3 .02
1p 3.76 3.73 3.89 3.65 .68 .56
1Q 3.92 3.96 4.10 3.88 .24 .86
Perceived Rating of own company by Reputational Attribute
2a 3.7 3.61 3.46 3.76 1.45 .22
2b 3.32 3.06 3.12 3.04 .83 .47
2c 3.44 3.38 3.22 3.52 1.7 .16
2d 3.82 3.86 3.98 3.98 .62 .59
2e 4.1 4.15 4.16 4.28 .9 .44
2f 3.72 3.74 3.70 3.86 .76 .51
2g 4.12 4.08 *3.50 4.08 3.2 .02
2h 3.96 4.01 *3.75 *4.25 4.4 .005
2j 3.56 3.66 *3.28 *3.88 4.8 .002
2k *4.30 3.94 3.82 3.88 4.8 .002
2l 3.96 3.83 3.58 3.67 1.22 .30
2m 3.72 3.68 *3.35 3.82 3.88 .01
2n 3.66 3.63 3.76 3.73 .25 .85
2p 3.54 3.47 3.4 3.66 1.23 .29
2q 3.62 3.59 *3.38 *3.88 3.82 .01
* indicates significance at .03 level
NS indicates not significant
indicates substantially lowest rating
indicates substantially highest rating
the higher the score, the higher respondents rated item (no reverse scorings).
Table 2b: Means Comparison
Question Far East Europe Latin American North American F score P level
Importance to Success for each Company Attribute
15a 4.76 4.75 4.44 4.66 1.74 .15
15b 3.88 4.28* 4.34* 3.91 3.9 .01
15c 4.56 4.66 4.48 4.42 1.04 .37
15d 4.34 4.5 4.27 4.53 1.74 .15
15e 3.14 3.03 3.58* 3.21 3.65 .01
15f 3.87 4.05 3.91 3.89 .32 .80
15g 4.20* 3.75 3.70 3.64 2.72 .02
15h 2.70 2.50 3.20* 2.70 2.57 .02
15j 4.22 4.43 3.98 4.30 2.01 .10
15k 4.18* *3.60 3.94 3.96 2.47 .02
15l 4.09 4.15 4.21 3.94 .87 .45
15m 4.06 4.26 4.21 4.27 .52 .66
Perceived Rating of own company by CompanyAttribute
16a 4.65* 4.21 4.28 4.26 2.6 .02
16b 3.34 3.30 3.80* 3.36 2.7 .02
16c 4.42 4.23 4.16 4.14 1.24 .29
16d 3.84 3.87 *3.46 3.94 2.8 .02
16e 2.95 2.90 *2.6 3.04 1.83 .12
16f 3.52 3.61 3.60 3.43 .67 .56
16g 4.16* 3.88 3.61 3.53 4.39 .003
16h 2.97 2.82 2.67 2.80 .44 .71
16j 4.16 4.16 *3.76 4.18 3.12 .02
16k 3.97 3.88 *3.52 3.95 3.78 .01
16l 3.52 3.68 3.56 3.67 .93 .42
16m 3.89* 3.54 3.45 3.59 2.5 .03
* indicates significance at .03 level
NS indicates not significant
indicates substantially lowest rating
indicates substantially highest rating
the higher the score, the higher respondents rated item (no reverse scorings).
Table 3: Reputational Ratings
Question Far East Europe Latin American North American F score P level
Overall Reputation of Company as Perceived by You
17 3.98 3.94 *3.64 4.06 2.98 .03
Overall Reputation of Company as Market Perceives it
18 3.84 3.85 3.64 3.95 1.51 .21
Overall Rating of Corporate Reputation as perceived importance ot Marketplace
19 4.28* *3.71 4.24 4.06 3.26 .01
* indicates significance at .03 level
NS indicates not significant
indicates substantially lowest rating
indicates substantially highest rating
the higher the score, the higher respondents rated item (no reverse scorings).
Table 4: Copy of Survey
MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS SURVEY
1. How important to success in the industry (market) in which you compete is each of the following attributes? Please rate each attribute on a scale which goes from 1 to 5 with 1= Not important and 5= extremely important. Circle the appropriate number.
Ratings Attributes
1 2 3 4 5 (1A) Consistency of Company Behavior in the Marketplace 1 2 3 4 5 (1B) Information Interchange among users of a company’s products
1 2 3 4 5 (1C) Clear and Concise Communications by a Company
1 2 3 4 5 (1D) Responsiveness to Customer Concerns
1 2 3 4 5 (1E) A Company’s Good Name
1 2 3 4 5 (1F) Believability of a Company’s Communications
1 2 3 4 5 (1G) Historically, a safe vendor choice
1 2 3 4 5 (1H) A Company’s Overall Character
1 2 3 4 5 (1J) Reliability of a Company’s Communications
1 2 3 4 5 (1K) Quality of overall Performance
1 2 3 4 5 (1L) Industry Leadership
1 2 3 4 5 (1M) Accuracy of a company’s communications
1 2 3 4 5 (1N) ‘Good Competitor’
1 2 3 4 5 (1P) Willingness to maintain consistency in company activities 1 2 3 4 5 (1Q) Dependability of a Company’s Communications
2. Rate each of the following attributes as to how your company is currently perceived in the marketplace. Rate each attribute on a scale which goes from 1 to 5 with
1= Extremely poor to 5= Excellent. Please circle the most appropriate number.
Ratings Attributes
1 2 3 4 5 (2A) Consistency of Company Behavior in the Marketplace 1 2 3 4 5 (2B) Information Interchange among company users
1 2 3 4 5 (2C) Clear and Concise Communications by a Company
1 2 3 4 5 (2D) Responsiveness to Customer Concerns
1 2 3 4 5 (2E) A Company’s Good Name
1 2 3 4 5 (2F) Believability of a Company’s Communications
1 2 3 4 5 (2G) Historically, a safe vendor choice
1 2 3 4 5 (2H) A Company’s Overall Character
1 2 3 4 5 (2J) Reliability of a Company’s Communications
1 2 3 4 5 (2K) Quality of overall Performance
1 2 3 4 5 (2L) Industry Leadership
1 2 3 4 5 (2M) Accuracy of a company’s communications
1 2 3 4 5 (2N) ‘Good Competitor’
1 2 3 4 5 (2P) Willingness to maintain consistency in company activities 1 2 3 4 5 (2Q) Dependability of a Company’s Communications
Q3. How many years has your firm been in Business? (check one)
___(1) 1-3 ___(2) 3-10 ___(3) 11-20 ___(4) 21-50 __(5) >50
Q4. How many years has your company been involved in International Trade?
___(1) 1-3 ___(2) 3-10 ___(3) 11-20 ___(4) 21-50 __(5) >50 ___(6) N.A.
5. Please rate your perception of the effectiveness of each of the following information transmittal techniques which your company uses. The ratings scale goes between 1 and 5 with 1= Ineffective and 5=The best it can be. If a technique is not used, just leave the answer space blank. Please circle the most appropriate number.
Effectiveness Information Transmittal Technique
1 2 3 4 5 (5A). Press Release
1 2 3 4 5 (5B). Trade Show
1 2 3 4 5 (5C). Annual Report
1 2 3 4 5 (5D). Preannouncement of company market activities
1 2 3 4 5 (5E). Press Briefing
1 2 3 4 5 (5F). Mass Media Advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 (5G). Trade Journal Ads
1 2 3 4 5 (5H). IntraCompany Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (5J). Customer Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (5K). Industry Write-Up in Journal
1 2 3 4 5 (5L). Catalogs
1 2 3 4 5 (5M). Executive Interviews
1 2 3 4 5 (5N). Directories (including Yellow Pages)
1 2 3 4 5 (5P). Action Only (no overt attempts to communicate)
6. Rate your company’s use of the following information transmittal techniques. The rating scale goes from 1 to 5 with 1= not used at all to 5=used all the time. Please circle the most appropriate number.
Use by Company Information Transmittal Technique
1 2 3 4 5 (6A). Press Release
1 2 3 4 5 (6B). Trade Show
1 2 3 4 5 (6C). Annual Report
1 2 3 4 5 (6D). Preannouncement of company market activities
1 2 3 4 5 (6E). Press Briefing
1 2 3 4 5 (6F). Mass Media Advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 (6G). Trade Journal Ads
1 2 3 4 5 (6H). IntraCompany Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (6J). Customer Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (6K). Industry Write-Up in Journal
1 2 3 4 5 (6L). Catalogs
1 2 3 4 5 (6M). Executive Interviews
1 2 3 4 5 (6N). Directories (including Yellow Pages)
1 2 3 4 5 (6P). Action Only (no overt attempts to communicate)
7. If you use any of these communications techniques listed in the question above (Q6), what is your intent in using them? (check all applicable)
_______(a) To Leak Information ________(d) Inform Suppliers
_______ (b) To Warn Competition ________ (e) Other:_______ ________(c) To Alert Customers ________ (f) Other:______
8. What do you see as the benefits of using information transmittal techniques: (WRITE-IN) _________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
9.Rate the degree to which your company monitors its competitors’ use of the following information transmittal techniques. The rating scale goes from 1 to 5 with 1= Does not Monitor at All to 5= Consistently Monitors. Please circle the most appropriate number.
Company Monitors Information Transmittal Technique
1 2 3 4 5 (9A). Press Release
1 2 3 4 5 (9B). Trade Show
1 2 3 4 5 (9C). Annual Report
1 2 3 4 5 (9D). Preannouncement of company market activities
1 2 3 4 5 (9E). Press Briefing
1 2 3 4 5 (9F). Mass Media Advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 (9G). Trade Journal Ads
1 2 3 4 5 (9H). IntraCompany Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (9J). Customer Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (9K). Industry Write-Up in Journal
1 2 3 4 5 (9L). Catalogs
1 2 3 4 5 (9M). Executive Interviews
1 2 3 4 5 (9N). Directories (including Yellow Pages)
1 2 3 4 5 (9P). Action Only (no overt attempts to communicate)
10. Rate your typical response level to information received from a competitor via each of the following information transmittal techniques. The scale goes from 1 to 5 with 1=No Response to 5=Aggressively Responds. Circle the most appropriate number.
Response Level Information Transmittal Technique
1 2 3 4 5 (10A). Press Release
1 2 3 4 5 (10B). Trade Show
1 2 3 4 5 (10C). Annual Report
1 2 3 4 5 (10D). Preannouncement of company market activities
1 2 3 4 5 (10E). Press Briefing
1 2 3 4 5 (10F). Mass Media Advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 (10G). Trade Journal Ads
1 2 3 4 5 (10H). IntraCompany Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (10J). Customer Newsletter
1 2 3 4 5 (10K). Industry Write-Up in Journal
1 2 3 4 5 (10L). Catalogs
1 2 3 4 5 (10M). Executive Interviews
1 2 3 4 5 (10N). Directories (including Yellow Pages)
1 2 3 4 5 (10P). Action Only (no overt attempts to communicate)
Q11. For each of the following categories, check the descriptor that best identifies your company
a) Type of Business b) Customer Type c) Principal Geographic Area Served
________(1)Manufacturing ___(1) Industrial ____(1) North American
________(2)Services ___(2) Consumer Durables ______ (2) European
________(3)Non-Profit _____(3)Consumer Non-Durables ______(3) East Asian
________(4)Government ______(4) Worldwide
Q12. How many employees does your company have? (check one)
___(1) 1-50 ___(2) 51-500 ___(3) 501-2000 ___(4) 2001-10,000 __(5) >10,000
Q13. How many locations does your company have?(check one)
___(1) 1 ___(2) 2-10 ___(3) 11-50 ___(4) 51-200 __(5) >200
Q14. Where is your company Headquarters located? (write in city and country) ___________
Q15: How important do you think each of the following company attributes are to the your firm’s success in the marketplace. The rating scale goes from 1 to 5 with 1= Not Important to 5= Extremely Important. Circle the most appropriate number per attribute.
Importance to Market ATTRIBUTES
1 2 3 4 5 (15A). Quality of the Product
1 2 3 4 5 (15B). Relative Price Competitiveness
1 2 3 4 5 (15C). Product Performance
1 2 3 4 5 (15D). Level of Customer Service
1 2 3 4 5 (15E). Promotion/Advertising Efforts
1 2 3 4 5 (15F). Abilities of Sales Force
1 2 3 4 5 (15G). State-of-the-art Technology
1 2 3 4 5 (15H). Attractiveness of Packaging
1 2 3 4 5 (15J). Willingness to stand behind product
1 2 3 4 5 (15K). Corporate Image
1 2 3 4 5 (15L). Product Availability
1 2 3 4 5 (15M). On-Time Delivery
Q16: Please rate how you think the market perceives your company for the following attributes. The rating scale goes from 1 to 5 with 1= Extremely poor to 5=Outstanding. Please circle the most appropriate numerical rating per attribute.
Company Rating ATTRIBUTES
1 2 3 4 5 (16A). Quality of the Product
1 2 3 4 5 (16B). Relative Price Competitiveness
1 2 3 4 5 (16C). Product Performance
1 2 3 4 5 (16D). Level of Customer Service
1 2 3 4 5 (16E). Promotional/Advertising Efforts
1 2 3 4 5 (16F). Abilities of Sales Force
1 2 3 4 5 (16G). State-of-the-art Technology
1 2 3 4 5 (16H). Attractiveness of Packaging
1 2 3 4 5 (16J). Willingness to stand behind product
1 2 3 4 5 (16K). Corporate Image
1 2 3 4 5 (16L). Product Availability
1 2 3 4 5 (16M). On Time Delivery
Answer Questions 17 to 19 by circling the most appropriate response.
17. Please rate the Overall Reputation of Your Company as You Perceive it:
Very Low 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent
18. Rate Overall Reputation of Your Company as You Believe Market Perceives it:
Very Low 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent
19. Rate Corporate Reputation According to your perception of its importance to the market: No Importance 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Important
Q20. What were your 1992 company’s revenues (in $ dollars)?
_____(1) Under $10,000,000 _____(2) $10-50 Million _____(3) $50-250 Million ____________(4) $250-999 Million ____________(5) Over $1 Billion
Q21. What percentage of company revenue was derived from foreign operations?
___(1)<10% ___(2) 10-30% ___(3) 31-50% ___(4) 51-75% __(5) >75%
Thank you for your cooperation. If you want a summary of the results please attach your business card.
JSU research associates. Dept. MGMT/MKTG Jacksonville State U. Jacksonville ALA 36265