ABSTRACT
PurposeThis research investigates the role of marketing channel selection in influencing brand authenticity and purchase likelihood in the international marketing domain. Further, perceived firm size is identified as a mediator in this regard. The moderating role of consumer skepticism is also considered.Design/methodology/approachThree experimental studies were carried out across three different markets (India, the US and the UK) in the context of South Korean brands.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that firms utilizing (only) online channels are perceived to be smaller than those that utilize hybrid channels (i.e. both online and physical stores) or offline channels (i.e. physical stores). When consumers perceive firms to be smaller, they also report higher levels of brand authenticity, which in turn increases their purchase likelihood. Further, this effect is weaker among consumers with high levels of skepticism.Originality/valueThe findings of the present research contribute to the international marketing literature by demonstrating how consumers perceive online marketing channels, the role of marketing channel selection in driving brand authenticity, as well as providing managerial implications on how to promote products in the international market.
ABSTRACT
As consumers become more aware of and concerned about the environmental impact of their consumption choices, an increasing number of luxury brands are now engaging in sustainability practices. This study examines factors influencing the effectiveness of embedding sustainability in luxury brands. Specifically, the research focus is the effect of childhood socioeconomic status on moderating consumer preferences for sustainable (vs. regular, nonsustainable) luxury brands. Four experimental studies using different product categories and luxury brands show that preferences for sustainable (vs. regular, nonsustainable) luxury brands are stronger among consumers with relatively low (vs. high) childhood socioeconomic status (Studies 1-4). Notably, these preference patterns are driven by differences in the perceived importance of cooperation in the community among consumers with low versus high childhood socioeconomic status (Study 3). However, these divergent patterns are attenuated when consumption involves the nonluxury brand category (Study 2), and when consumers experience a high-threat environment (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic;Study 4). As such, the findings of this study contribute to the literature by shedding light on the conditions under which consumers show preferences for sustainable (vs. regular, nonsustainable) luxury brands, establishing a theoretically grounded mediator (importance of cooperation in the community) and moderator (perceived environmental threat). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Recent research has suggested conflicting evidence on how consumers respond to threat (from diseases) concerning their product preferences. Specifically, consumers might exhibit higher versus lower preferences for typical (vs. atypical) products. Drawing upon the literature on consumption-based affect regulation and consumers? mindset, this research seeks to reconcile these seemingly conflicting findings by establishing the moderating role of consumers? mindset. In three experimental studies, we show that among consumers with a fixed (vs. growth) mindset, perceived threat of COVID-19 would lead to higher (vs. lower) preferences for typical products. Furthermore, these divergent effects are explained by two distinct affect regulation strategies. The effect of threat among consumers with a growth (vs. fixed) mindset will be mediated by regaining a sense of control (vs. self-protection). These findings contribute the literature on disease cues, affect regulation, and consumers? mindset, and offer practical implications for marketers during COVID-19 pandemic.