An executive summary for

managers and executive Effect of perceived brand origin

readers can be found at the
end of this article associations on consumer
perceptions of quality
Mrugank V. Thakor
Associate Professor, John Molson School of Business,
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Anne M. Lavack
Associate Professor, Faculty of Administation, University of Regina,
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

Keywords Brand identity, Country-of-origin, Corporate ownership,

Consumer psychology, Component manufacturing, Manufacturing industries
Abstract Reviews recent work in the country of origin and brand name literatures
regarding the formation of perceptions regarding perceived brand origin. Based on this
review, presents six hypotheses concerning such perceptions, including their effect on
consumers' ratings of quality. Using real brands in two experiments, finds support for
several of our hypotheses relating to the effects of country of component source, country
of manufacture, and country of corporate ownership. In particular, finds that country of
manufacture had no effect on product quality evaluations when country of corporate
ownership was also present.

Consumer perceptions
The recognition of the importance of brand equity has led to significant
research interest on the relationship between brand characteristics and
consumer brand perceptions (Aaker, 1990, 1991). One such area of
research focuses on how consumer perceptions of brands are likely to be
shaped by brand characteristics, such as the intrinsic properties of different
brand names (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987; Meyers-Levy, 1989; Pavia and
Costa, 1993). To elicit perceived country of origin associations, many brands
use cues that are either implied in the brand name or in promotional appeals
(Agrawal and Kamakura, 1999). This is particularly true within categories in
which perceived origin or national identity is exceptionally important to their
image (e.g. Gucci and Tag Heuer signify Italy and Switzerland, respectively,
to many consumers). These perceived origin associations are a powerful
source of brand appeal, as marketers have demonstrated through focusing
advertising on origin associations in many product categories. For example,
Pace Picante Salsa had ads depicting a group of Texans who were shocked to
find out that the ``other brand'' is ``made in New York city!'', thereby
affirming the perception of Texas roots for Pace Picante. Coors ads have
mentioned its origins in Golden, Colorado and use a mountain setting to
reinforce these origin associations. Porsche ads often show a German test

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of FCAR (Fonds pour la Formation
de Chercheurs et l'Aide a la Recherche, Government of Quebec), Concordia
University, and the University of Regina in conducting this research, and also wish to
extend their appreciation for the efforts of research assistant Oren Hoffart. An earlier
and shorter abstract of this paper was prepared for the European Marketing Academy
conference and proceedings.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

394 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003, pp. 394-407, # MCB UP LIMITED, 1061-0421, DOI 10.1108/10610420310498821

Origin associations
Perceptions of quality
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003
track, to reinforce its German origin association. Finally, Christian Dior uses
the French word, ``Parfum'', in its advertising to reinforce its French origin
association. While issues relating to origin associations in general have been
long considered in the country of origin (COO) literature, very little research
has focused on the effects of brand origin associations (d'Astous and Ahmed,
1999).
While brand names have been included in many studies, most of the COO
literature to date has focused on origin effects at the product level as opposed
to the brand level (Chao, 2001; Pecotich and Rosenthal, 2001; Piron, 2000;
Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). It is possibly for this reason that brand has
been considered as a purely extrinsic variable, and consumer perceptions of
origin have been manipulated almost solely through the ``made in'' label
information (Liefeld, 1993; Mohamad et al., 2000). It has been noted,
however, that there are a variety of ways in which origin information can be
communicated, particularly through the brand name itself (Papadopoulos,
1993; Johansson, 1993). Air France and Newcastle Brown Ale,
Mercedes-Benz, L'Oreal, and Nakamichi all contain origin cues that may
appeal to certain segments of consumers, even though in the latter three
instances no definitive country or region is expressed in the name. Such
brand names can be found across a broad range of product categories: liquor
± Glenlivet, Cinzano; consumer electronics ± Samsung, Braun; cars
± Oldsmobile, Toyota, Hyundai; Clothes ± Chanel, Versace; shoes ± Bally,
Prada, Rockport.
These perceived origin associations are evident within many brand names,
created either through the language associated with the brand name or
through advertising. Therefore, the validity is suspect for studies that
have used brand names, such as Sony, as exemplars without
recognizing that the branding itself is a cue (Samiee, 1994). As Thakor and
Kohli (1996) observe, it is questionable to generalize from studies which use
examples from branded product categories but fail to take intrinsic brand
information into account, since strong origin associations may be attached to
the brand, and these may act as a confound in the experimental setting. These
are well-founded concerns, since brand-related origin cues do appear to be
extremely salient to consumers: for instance, one study found that more than
66 per cent of people thought that the Volkswagen Fox was made in
Germany; only 8 per cent of people knew it was actually manufactured in
Brazil (Ratliff, 1989). It is important that research shed light on
understanding the relative influence of brand origin associations compared to
COO as traditionally manipulated through the ``made-in'' cue (Clarke et al.,
2000; O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy, 2000).
In this paper, we review research relating to the origin associations of
brands and extend this work by developing hypotheses regarding the
effect of brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of quality.
We present a model of the antecedents and consequences of brand origin
and demonstrate a methodology which allows estimation of the effects of
origin cues inherent in brand images, keeping in mind concerns regarding
the potential for confounding of results when using real brands (Samiee,
1994). We describe two experiments conducted to test the hypotheses
formulated, and present their results. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and
managerial implications of the research, note the limitations of this study,
and identify some avenues for further research.
395
 Brand origin associations
Like the COO literature, much of the research in the brand name area
concerns itself with the effects of origin cues. This is particularly the case
with ``foreign branding'' (Leclerc et al., 1994). Leclerc et al. (1994) use this
term to describe the approach of spelling or pronouncing a brand name in a
foreign language, using brands such as Egoiste fragrance, Frusen Gladje ice
cream, and Yoplait yogurt, as examples. While these brand names may
sound foreign, the brands themselves are actually made in the USA by
US-owned firms. In a study by Leclerc et al. (1994), perceptions of brand
nationality were manipulated through French/English pronunciation. The
study found that for hedonic products, the brand name was preferred when
the French pronunciation was used. In addition, the French pronunciation
resulted in more favorable brand attitudes.
Potential origin Harris et al. (1994) performed a similar study using brand names that
could conform to more than one potential origin. While results varied
somewhat by product category, Harris et al. (1994) generally concluded
that English brand names were preferred to French and German brand
names. The results of these two studies suggest that brand origin
associations play a potentially powerful role in the formation of brand
attitudes. Leclerc et al. (1994) call for research to determine whether
foreign branding is always stronger than COO as operationalized through
the ``made-in'' cue.
While these two studies are valuable in that they offer a different empirical
perspective than the traditional studies in which COO is represented and
manipulated only through the ``made-in'' cue, the results are more
significant with respect to brand names than to brand images as a whole. In
an effort to synthesize the COO and brand image literatures, Thakor and
Kohli (1996) define ``brand origin'' as the ``place, region or country where a
brand is perceived to belong by its target consumers'' (Thakor and Kohli,
1996, p. 27). They suggest that the brand origin association is among the
``most salient personality characteristics'' of brands (see also Batra et al.,
1993). Thakor and Kohli (1996) make a distinction between brand origin and
COO, maintaining that the former is an essential aspect of brand image;
while the product-level focused COO literature has compared branding to
price by suggesting that branding is an extrinsic cue, separable from other
origin information.
Brand origin perceptions As such, while COO studies rely heavily on the ``made in'' information, such
information is not expected to be the only factor in determining brand origin
perceptions, nor is it expected to be the most important. In fact, multiple
inputs or antecedents of brand origin exist from which consumers may draw
brand origin cues (see Figure 1). Using these cues, consumers formulate
perceived brand origins, which they use to devise more general perceptions,
attitudes, expectations and intentions about the product and the brand.

Figure 1. A model of the antecendents and consequences of brand origin

396 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003

 Though not addressed by Thakor and Kohli (1996), a distinction can be
drawn between brand origin and other similar concepts. Among marketers,
foreign branding is one of the most obvious examples of the use of brand
origin; however, the construct appears much broader in scope. For example,
some Japanese automakers have shown their US manufacturing plants in
their advertising, in an attempt to project a ```naturalized'' US identity. This
example suggests that domestic origin may be as important in some product
categories as foreign branding appears to be for fashion and hedonistic
products (GuÈrhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000a, b). In addition to cues
inherent in the brand name, the brand origin construct also takes into account
those cues conveyed through advertising. This represents an important
distinction between foreign branding and brand origin, since despite the fact
that many brand names (such as Harp, Beck, and Corona beers and
Waterman pens) do not evoke any specific origin perceptions, for some
segments of consumers they are still strongly associated with a particular
origin as a consequence of brand promotional efforts. Finally, another
distinction between brand origin and foreign branding rests in the inclusion
of city or region cues as well as a country cues in the brand origin construct
(e.g. Kraft's Philadelphia cream cheese, Old El Paso packaged foods).
Stereotyping effect Defining country of origin as the country with which a firm is associated,
Samiee (1994) speculates that COO, along with country of manufacture or
assembly, produces a country stereotyping effect (CSE) on consumers. He
suggests this CSE is formed by ``factual information . . . not subject to
change based on consumers' attitudes, sentiments, or biases'' with regard to
the country associated with the firm as well as the country of manufacture of
the product (Samiee, 1994, pp. 581-3). Seeming to recognize Liefeld's
(1993) point that in some cases one has to be an ``amateur detective'' to find
country-related information, Samiee (1994) notes that such information may
not necessarily be available to the consumer. However, while Samiee (1994)
observes that a CSE may be caused by reasons other than simply factual
information about a country ± for example, product experience and/or
personal travel experience ± he does not give much recognition to the role of
marketers in influencing consumers' origin perceptions.
Foreign branding, because it represents a planned effort to enhance or
differentiate brand image, is an example of this. For example, until
Stolichnaya brand vodka used comparative advertising to point out the
mid-western US origins of two of its competitors, many US consumers
believed that Smirnoff and Wolfschmidt were also Russian brands.
Likewise, while brands such as Klarbunn, Giorgio di St Angelo, and
Haagen Dazs may seem foreign, they are actually all US owned and made
(Leclerc et al., 1994).
Origin cues The main distinction between the country stereotyping effect and brand
origin seems to be that CSE focuses more on origin cues ± the country
± while the focus of brand origin is on brand perceptions and the influence of
origin associations over them (Knight and Calantone, 2000). Overall, much
of the COO research fails to deal with the real possibility that the most
salient origin cues are those carefully contrived by marketers in an effort to
differentiate their brand and/or heighten its image.

Experiment 1
Perceptions of brand origin
In this first stage, we attempted an empirical assessment of consumer
perceptions of brand origin. As observed above, we expect multiple

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003 397

 influences to affect these perceptions, including the cumulative effort of
marketers using different tools. However, we restricted our efforts here to
estimating the effect of two potential factors: the perceived location of
corporate ownership (Samiee, 1994), and the perceived location of
component source (postulated to be relevant by Tse and Gorn, 1993). The
COO literature often assumes that manipulation of ``made in'' labels has an
impact on subjects' perceptions of origin and nationality. As a result, many
COO studies do not even include manipulation checks to confirm that
subjects actually noticed the origin cue. However, this is an issue that merits
investigation, since it is basic to establishing the effects of origin
perceptions. Thus, we formulate hypotheses below regarding the effect of
these two factors:
H1. The perceived location of corporate ownership will significantly affect
perceptions of a brand's origin.
H2. The perceived location of the source of product components will
significantly affect perceptions of a brand's origin.

Perceptions of overall quality

Limitations While Leclerc et al. (1994) note some limitations inherent in their research
design, there are other constraints, endemic to a methodology using
fictitious brand names as stimuli, which bear mentioning. In particular, it
can be argued that because their study uses fictitious brand names as
stimuli, it is really examining consumer reactions to origin cues conveyed
through unfamiliar brand names, as opposed to origin associations that are
part of a total brand image. Leclerc et al. (1994) report significantly more
positive results on measures of attitude toward the brand for hedonic
products when brand names were pronounced in French rather than
English; however, the only two pieces of information provided to subjects
were the brand name and the product category. Hence, subjects' responses
in this instance might more realistically be regarded as indicating their
opinion of the congruence or otherwise between the brand name and
product category ± in other words, providing information very similar to
their attitude toward the brand name.
Purchase intention Similarly, Harris et al. (1994) used brand names conveying different origins
(e.g. ``Kraftsburger Bier'' to indicate a German origin; ``Biere de Bordeaux''
to signal a French one) in mock advertisements, and found a significant
effect of this perceived origin on product liking and purchase intention.
However, since subjects' judgments were based solely on viewing fictitious
brand names, it appears that results are better interpreted in terms of
perceived congruence between the category and the nationality signaled by
the brand name, rather than liking for a product that they had no other
information about. In fact, even this interpretation is problematic given that
the design of the Harris et al. (1994) study does not control for brand name
liking, and the actual brand names vary across different conditions. Hence, it
seems clear that research is required which uses real brands and manipulates
perceptions of origin through varying the location of corporate ownership
and location of component source. This should allow determination of the
true effect of brand origin associations on consumer perceptions and
attitudes, rather than estimation of the effect of the brand name. Accordingly,
we present the hypotheses below:
H3. Perceived location of corporate ownership will significantly affect
perceptions of the overall quality of a brand.

398 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003


Familiarity and quality
Overall measure quality
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003
H4. Perceived location of the source of components will significantly affect
perceptions of the overall quality of a brand.
Method
A total of 34 undergraduates were asked to evaluate the extent to which two
brands ``belonged'' to different countries, and the quality of the brands. The
cover story used was that globalization of manufacturing was making it
difficult to assign a particular nationality to many brands, so a survey was
being conducted to assess consumer perceptions of brand nationality. In line
with this cover story, each subject saw a questionnaire containing ``factual''
information about two brands: Kawasaki motorcycles and Denon stereo
systems. For Kawasaki, information about the source of components varied
between Taiwan and Japan, but information about corporate ownership was
constant. For Denon, information about the source of components stayed
constant, but information about location of corporate ownership varied
between Japan and Korea. Therefore, this resulted in a 2  2 within-between
experiment (all subjects saw two brands, but half the subjects saw that
Kawasaki components came from Taiwan and Denon ownership was in
Japan, and the other half saw that Kawasaki components came from Japan
and Denon ownership was in Korea). Subjects were also provided with the
place of manufacture for both brands (included to retain the credibility of the
experimental scenario).
In an earlier pretest of ten brands with 30 respondents from the same pool as
those with whom the experiment was conducted, Denon was found to be a
brand that was relatively familiar to subjects (mean 7.4 on 14), and perceived
as being of relatively high quality (mean 4.66 on seven). These two
attributes, familiarity and quality, were assessed to ensure that significant
effects on perceived quality were not lost due to unfamiliarity with the brand
or due to a floor effect with regard to quality. The pretest also showed that
the Denon brand was not strongly associated with any one country (only five
of 30 respondents associated it with a particular country; only four correctly
picked Japan as the country). It was considered important that the brand not
be strongly associated with any one country so as to maintain the credibility
of the experimental manipulation and minimize hypothesis-guessing (as
might result, for example, from asking subjects to believe that
Mercedes-Benz was owned by a Mexican company). The potential
consequence of strong previous association with a particular country was not
of concern in the case where only the source of components was being
manipulated, and hence the Kawasaki brand was selected on a judgmental
basis.
Given that the source of components was in one country and the location of
corporate ownership was in another country, in each experimental condition
the subjects were asked to allocate 100 points between these two countries
and a third country category labeled ``other''. The ``other'' country category
was provided to account for any other country impressions subjects might
have regarding brand origin. This allocation of the 100 points represented a
measure of perceptions of origin and was relevant to testing H1 and H2. To
measure perceptions of overall quality (i.e. to test H3 and H4), a three-item,
seven-point semantic differential scale was patterned after scales used in
previous studies (Han, 1986; Lim et al., 1994). The mean of the three-item
scale (quality = poor/very high, quality = uncertain/certain,
workmanship = very bad/very good) was used arrive at an overall measure of
quality (Cronbach  = 0.87 in the case of Kawasaki, Cronbach  = 0.81 in the
case of Denon).
399
 Kawasaki Country of component source
Low (Taiwan) High (Japan) df F p
Perception of ``high'' origin 48.1 65.6 1, 32 5.14 0.03
Perception of overall quality 5.1 5.7 1, 32 3.34 0.07
Denon Country of corporate ownership
Low (Korea) High (Japan) df F p
Perception of ``high'' origin 51.8 39.9 1, 32 4.12 0.05
Perception of overall quality 4.9 4.6 1, 32 0.49 0.49
Notes: Perception of ``high'' origin consists of the 100 points divided between the two
countries and an ``other'' country category. Perception of overall quality is measured
on a seven-point scale, where 1 = low quality and 7 = high quality

Table I. Mean ratings on brand origin perceptions and perceived quality as a

function of country of component source and country of corporate ownership

Results
Two separate one-way analyses of variance (equivalent to t-tests) were
conducted for each brand, with perceptions of origin and perceptions of
quality the dependent variables (see Table I). The perceived origin of
Kawasaki was significantly affected (F [1, 32] = 5.14, p < 0.05) by location of
component source, and that of Denon (F [1, 32] = 4.12, p < 0.05) by location
of corporate ownership. Thus, support was found for H1 and H2 regarding
the effects of location of corporate ownership and source of components on
perceptions of brand origin. With respect to perception of overall quality, the
results for Kawasaki were borderline significant (F [1, 32] = 3.34, p < 0.10),
while those for Denon did not reach significance. Therefore, marginal
support was observed for H4 relating to the effect of component source on
perceived quality. H3 (relating to the effect of location of corporate
ownership on perceived quality) was not supported.

Experiment 2
Artifact of brand Overall, the pattern of results emerging from the first experiment was not clear.
Location of corporate ownership did not have a significant effect on perceived
quality. However, this might have been an artifact of the brand (Denon) selected
for use as a stimulus. Denon quality was rated at 4.66 out of seven, which was
not as high a quality rating as might have been considered desirable. Perhaps the
lack of a significant result occurred because subjects did not regard Denon
highly to begin with, so the manipulation consequently did not affect their
perceptions very much. Also, since the countries of corporate ownership used in
the two conditions were both highly reputed as producers of electronic products
(e.g. Japan and Korea), perhaps the experimental manipulation might not have
been strong enough. Finally, country of manufacture was not included as a
factor in the first experiment. This left unaddressed a question of substantive
interest: to what extent would country of manufacture effects on perceived
quality still be salient in the presence of information about country of ownership
or brand origin? Hypotheses regarding this question are stated below:
H5. Perceived location of manufacture will positively affect perceptions of
the overall quality of a brand.
H6. Perceived location of corporate ownership will have a stronger effect on
perceptions of overall quality than country of manufacture.

Method
The purpose of this experiment, in addition to testing H5 and H6, was to re-
investigate the non-significant result obtained earlier with respect to H3,

400 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003

 using different brands. To this end, a 2 (brand origin)  2 (country of
manufacture) between-subjects design was employed. All questionnaires
contained information about two brands, Epson and Mont Blanc, which
constituted a within-subjects replication factor. These two brands were
selected based on a pretest where 34 subjects rated a set of 12 brands. Results
of this pretest indicated that these two brands were both familiar (mean
familiarity rating of 10.22 out of 14 for Epson and 9.87 out of 14 for Mont
Blanc). Also, both brands were perceived as being of high quality (means
4.97 out of seven for Epson and 5.14 out of seven for Mont Blanc). These
two brands were not strongly associated by respondents with any one country
(only nine of the 34 respondents said that they identified Epson with a
particular country, with only three of those correctly identifying it as
Japanese; likewise, only seven of 34 said they identified Mont Blanc with a
specific country, and only five of those picked the right country, Germany).
Component source The cover story used in the previous experiment was retained here.
Subjects were provided with the names of the two brands (Epson printers
and Mont Blanc pens), the country of manufacture of the brand (varied
between Korea and Mexico for Epson, the USA and Poland for Mont
Blanc), and the country of brand corporate ownership (varied between
Japan and Malaysia for Epson, and between Germany and Portugal for
Mont Blanc). Location of component source was not provided. As a result
of this experimental design, in every condition the country of corporate
ownership and the country of manufacture were ascribed to two different
countries. Treatments were counter-balanced across the two brands to
minimize the possibility of demand artifacts.
A total of 91 undergraduate students evaluated the two brands. Subjects
provided evaluations of the perceived quality of each brand using a six-item,
seven-point semantic differential scale. The mean of the six items in the
scale was computed to obtain an overall measure of perceived quality
(Cronbach  = 0.86 for Epson, Cronbach  = 0.89 for Mont Blanc). Among
the six items in this perceived quality scale were the three items used in
Experiment 1, which had been drawn from the literature, and three other
items added from published studies (e.g. Nagashima, 1970). Based on an
independent review, 14 of 91 questionnaires were discarded as being
substantially incomplete, and the final analysis was conducted with 77
questionnaires.

Results
2 6 2 ANOVA The data were analyzed using a 2 (country of corporate ownership)  2
(country of manufacture) ANOVA (see Table II). Country of corporate

Country of manufacture
Country of corporate ownership Low (Mexico) High (Korea)
Epson High (Japan) 4.3 4.3
Low (Malaysia) 3.7 4.0
Country of manufacture
Country of corporate ownership Low (Poland) High (USA)
Mont Blanc High (Germany) 4.9 5.1
Low (Portugal) 4.4 4.6
Notes: Perceived quality ratings are from one to seven, where 1 = low perceived
quality and 7 = high perceived quality

Table II. Mean ratings on perceived quality as a function of country of corporate

ownership and country of manufacture

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003 401

 ownership was found to have a significant effect on perceptions of quality
for both brand stimuli used: Epson (F [1, 76] = 5.08, p < 0.05; see Figure 2)
and Mont Blanc (F [1, 74] = 5.34, p < 0.05; see Figure 3). Hence, in
Experiment 2 using a different set of brands and a larger sample size, support
was found for H3 regarding the effect of country of corporate ownership.
However, no significant effect of country of manufacture was found in either
case (p > 0.10), so H5 was not supported. As well, there was no significant
interaction between country of corporate ownership and country of
manufacture. Finally, H6 was supported, since country of corporate
ownership had a greater effect on perceptions of overall quality than country
of manufacture.

Discussion
Results of the experiments show that perceptions of brand origin are
influenced by country of corporate ownership, as are perceptions of brand
quality. Country of component source was also found to affect perceptions of
brand origin. Country of manufacture did not affect perceptions of brand

Figure 2. Epson ± perceived quality ratings as a function of country of corporate

ownership (CCO) and country of manufacture (CM)

Figure 3. Mont Blanc ± perceived quality ratings as a function of country of

corporate ownership (CCO) and country of manufacture (CM)

402 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003


Academic research
Constructive replication
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003
quality when country of corporate ownership information was also provided.
This suggests an information hierarchy, where consumers are highly
influenced by knowing the country where the brand is owned (brand origin
association), and less influenced by knowing the country where where the
product's parts are made or where the product is assembled (COO).
The findings of this study represent a step toward examining how brand
origin information affects consumers. Where country of corporate ownership
was manipulated, there was no significant effect for the country of
manufacture (i.e. no effect for the traditional ``made in'' country
manipulation). This provides preliminary evidence that studies
communicating country information solely through the use of ``made in''
information may not generalize to contexts where branded goods convey
information through their names or claims in their packaging or promotion
(i.e. such claims as the product's country of ownership or the product's
implied origin).
The implication for academic research is that studies conducted in branded
good markets (cars, televisions, etc.) should recognize the fact that country
of corporate ownership is a strong determinant of brand origin perceptions,
and possibly a stronger influence than country of manufacture on perceptions
of quality. Furthermore, country of perceived corporate ownership may also
be a stronger influence than actual country of corporate ownership (e.g.
common perception of Smirnoff as being a Russian vodka). For researchers
in industry as well, this study makes explicit the importance of origin
associations to brands, and demonstrates a viable methodology for
investigation of origin effects in brand dominated settings. As such, it should
be of considerable use in the measurement and management of brand origin
associations.
Limitations
Despite the significant effects obtained, the power of statistical tests may
have been compromised by the relatively small size of the sample. This
might account for the contradictory findings for country of corporate
ownership across the two experiments (the effect was non-significant in the
first experiment, but significant in the second). Repeating Experiment 1 with
a larger sample size might have yielded statistically significant results. The
sample size was larger in Experiment 2; however, it is possible that this
sample was still not sufficiently large to yield a statistically significant
measure of the subtle country of manufacture effect, since the effect of
country of manufacture on perceived quality was not significant. However,
factors militating against this argument regarding Experiment 2 include the
significant effect of country of corporate ownership on perceived quality that
was obtained, and the fact that country of manufacture was not even close to
achieving significance. It should also be noted that a student sample was
used for both Experiments 1 and 2. While the members of the student sample
were likely to be familiar with the type of product used in the study, students
are not a consumer group with significant experience purchasing big-ticket
items. Therefore, a replication with a non-student sample would be desirable
to ensure that the results are generalizable to the larger population.
Future research
The findings of this study indicate the need for constructive replication using
other brands and other subject populations. For instance, Samiee (1994)
observes that mature and well-known brands (e.g. IBM or Mercedes) and
large-ticket items may be more likely to convey origin information. An
403
 interesting question that arises is the extent to which origin effects are
effective in enhancing the image of brands in categories that may be high
involvement but are not high ticket ± e.g. Ragu spaghetti sauce, Ben and
Jerry's ice cream. While this question has been considered in the context of
``foreign branding'' (Leclerc et al., 1994), the results claimed there with
regard to brand attitude are more correctly seen as indicating perceptions of
congruence between brand name and product category.
Finally, a future study using a full-factorial research design that includes
country of component source, country of manufacture, and country of
corporate ownership might better explain the relative impact of these three
factors on perceptions of brand origin, as well as show the interactions
between these factors for different classes of products.

Managerial implications
This research shows that the brand origin association may be more
influential than the country of origin (COO), in terms of consumer
evaluations of a product. The results indicate that the country of manufacture
(a measure of COO) had no effect on product quality ratings when the
country of corporate ownership (a measure of brand origin association) was
also present. The implication is that managers of global brands need not be
overly concerned with their selection of countries for manufacturing or
sourcing of components. Consumers perceive the brand origin of a product to
be associated with the country where the brand's corporate parent resides,
rather than the country in which the product or its components are
manufactured at any given time. This suggests that a Toyota car benefits
from its Japanese heritage, even when the Toyota is actually made in the
USA. Furthermore, a brand may benefit from a perceived corporate heritage,
such as the common perception that Smirnoff is a Russian brand of vodka.
Therefore, the brand origin association appears to represent a more powerful
influence on consumers, while information about where a product's parts
were manufactured or assembled is less important.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1990), ``Are brand equity investments really worthwhile?'', in Aaker, D.A. and
Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Agrawal, J. and Kamakura, W.A. (1999), ``Country of origin: a competitive advantage?'',
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 255-67.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R. and Singh, D. (1993), ``The brand personality component of brand
goodwill: some antecedents and consequences'', in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds),
Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Chao, P. (2001), ``The moderating effects of country of assembly, country of parts, and country
of design on hybrid product evaluations'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 67-81.
Clarke, I., Owens, M. and Ford, J.B. (2000), ``Integrating country of origin into global
marketing strategy: a review of US marking statutes'', International Marketing Review,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 114-26.
D'Astous, A. and Ahmed, S.A. (1999), ``The importance of country images in the formation of
consumer product perceptions'', International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 108-26.
GuÈrhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000a), ``Cultural variations in country of origin
effects'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 309-17.
GuÈrhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000b), ``Determinants of country-of-origin
evaluations'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Han, C. (1986), ``Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products:
information integration perspective'', dissertation, University of Michigan, Dearborn, MI.

404 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003

 Harris, R.J., Garner-Earl, B., Sprick, S.J. and Carroll, C. (1994), ``Effects of foreign product
names and country-of-origin attributions on advertisement evaluations'', Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 129-44.
Johansson, J.K. (1993), ``Missing a strategic opportunity: managers' denial of
country-of-origin effects'', in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (Eds), Product-Country
Images, Haworth Press, New York, NY.
Knight, G.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), ``A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin
perceptions: a cross-cultural investigation'', International Marketing Review, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 127-45.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H. and DubeÂ, L. (1994), ``Foreign branding and its effects on product
perceptions and attitudes'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 263-70.
Liefeld, J.P. (1993), ``Experiments on country-of-origin effects: review and meta-analysis of
effect size'', in Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product and Country Images,
Haworth Press, New York, NY.
Lim, J., Darley, W.K. and Summers, J.O. (1994), ``An assessment of country of origin effects
under alternative presentation formats'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 274-82.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1989), ``The influence of a brand name's association set size and word
frequency on brand memory'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Mohamad, O., Ahmed, Z.U., Honeycutt, E.D. and Tyebkhan, T.H. (2000), ``Does `made in . . .'
matter to consumers? A Malaysian study of country of origin'', Multinational Business
Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 69-73.
O'Shaughnessy, J. and O'Shaughnessy, N.J. (2000), ``Treating the nation as a brand: some
neglected issues'', Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 56-64.
Papadopoulos, N. (1993), ``What product and country images are and are not'', in
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds), Product and Country Images, Haworth Press,
New York, NY.
Pavia, T.M. and Costa, J.A. (1993), ``The winning number: consumer perceptions of
alpha-numeric brand names'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 85-96.
Pecotich, A. and Rosenthal, M.J. (2001), ``Country of origin, quality, brand and consumer
ethnocentrism'', Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 31-60.
Piron, F. (2000), ``Consumers' perceptions of the country-of-origin effect on purchasing
intentions of (in)conspicuous products'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 308-21.
Ratliff, R. (1989), ``Where's that new car made? Many Americans don't know'', The Ottawa
Citizen, 11 November, p. D13 (report on study made in the USA Foundation Inc.).
Samiee, S. (1994), ``Customer evaluation of products in a global market'', Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Thakor, M.V. and Kohli, C.S. (1996), ``Brand origin: conceptualization and review'', Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 27-42.
Tse, D.K. and Gorn, G.J. (1993), ``An experiment on the salience of country-of-origin in the
era of global brands'', Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-77.
Verlegh, P.W.J. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1999), ``A review and meta-analysis of
country-of-origin research'', Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 521-46.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Martin, C.R. (1987), ``New brand names and inferential beliefs: some
insights on naming new products'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 157-72.

Further reading
Nagashima, A. (1970), ``A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes toward foreign products'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 68-74.
&

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003 405

 This summary has been
provided to allow managers
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then read
the article in toto to take
advantage of the more
comprehensive description
of the research undertaken
and its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
406
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
It is not where it is made but where you think it is made that matters
The impact that country-of-origin (COO) has on consumer response has
been the subject of much academic enquiry and is of considerable interest to
marketers. We recognise that certain countries become associated with
particular types of product and with perceptions of quality and reliability.
These associations can be exploited by marketers ± we have seen the
advertisements where, for example, a very Italian imagery is used to promote
a pizza brand made in Germany. Because of this ``exploitation'' the question
posed by Thakor and Lavack becomes especially significant ± is COO more
or less important than the origin or perceived origin of the brand?
Thakor and Lavack note that ``perceived origin associations are a powerful
source of brand appeal, as marketers have demonstrated through focusing
advertising on origin associations in many product categories''. The authors
also note surveys showing that consumers put the brand origin association
ahead of the actual place of manufacture ± they cite one study showing how
66 percent of those surveyed saw the Volkswagen Fox as a German car
despite it being made in Brazil.
Place of manufacture is relatively unimportant
Thakor and Lavack show that the place where something is made is
unimportant compared to the origin of the brand and even the components of
the product. Guinness does not become less Irish for the average UK
consumer by being made in London and those same consumers still see
Toyota as a Japanese car despite it being manufactured at Derby.
This relative unimportance of manufacturing location supports the
relocation of manufacturing to lower cost or more convenient places since
making our product in another country does not detract from our US,
Japanese of French branding. In many ways this reflects where many of the
costs lie ± in distribution, design and marketing rather than in assembly. In
the case of a car this proportion can reach a third of production costs and
for other products the proportion is far higher.
At the same time as manufacturers recognise the benefits from low cost
production, another process is emerging aimed at protecting places of
production. Parma ham, Stilton cheese and, most famously, Champagne (but
not, sadly, Cheddar cheese) are all protected through the product
description only being available when it is made in a defined geographic
location. This prevents businesses ``passing off'' their product as something
it is not (i.e. from somewhere other than where it says it is made).
What should concern us as marketers is the fact the COO ± defined in terms
of place of manufacture ± is not especially important. Such a finding not only
merits further examination but raises questions about the wider body of work
looking at COO effects ± especially since these effects are seen to be
significant. Thakor and Lavack remark that ``much of the COO research fails
to deal with the real possibility that the most salient origin cues are those
carefully contrived by marketers in an effort to differentiate their brand
and/or heighten its image''.
Real and perceived origin associations
The discussion here focuses primarily on consumer perceptions and, in doing
so, Thakor and Lavack recognise that many marketers use a degree of
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003
 deception in the selection of brand names, the formulation of positioning
strategies and the development of advertising treatments. The authors note
the use of foreign sounding brand names for products made in the USA by
companies based in the USA. These ``deceptive'' brand names become
reinforced where the positioning and advertising strategies place the product
in the assumed cultural location (ice cream in Italy, perfume in France,
vodka in Russia, etc.).
Alongside these foreign-sounding brands are, of course, real foreign brands
and ± regardless of the place where the product is actually made ± these
brands are associated with their country of origin. Indeed this association
dominates: ``perceptions of brand origin are influenced by country of
corporate ownership as are perceptions of brand quality''. BMW is a
quintessentially German brand regardless of whether the cars are made in
Munich or Manchester.
The issue for the brand owner faced with this dominant association is to
make the most of it where the COO associations are positive. It is an entirely
sensible strategy for Mercedes to play on their German roots and for
Christian Dior to focus on Frenchness. In many ways the national
characteristics are assumed to be reflected in the design, presentation and
performance of the product.
In the alternative case (where COO associations are negative) marketers
face the challenge of decoupling the brand from its COO associations and
their replacement with a neutral or different association. Not being a nation
associated with a particular product, style or image does not preclude brand
success. US firms can and do successfully create luxury goods brands and
high fashion brands despite the USA not being associated with these sorts of
product (which Americans are the biggest market for).
Various tactics are available to marketers ± placing the brand in a different
cultural context, adopting a culturally neutral positioning and even keeping
the country-of-origin connection. But what Thakor and Lavack have shown is
that it is brand origin association that should be our initial concern rather
than the effect of where we actually make the product. Consumers seem to
accept that my ice cream can be imbued with the spirit of la dolce vita even
when it is made in Pittsburgh!

(A preÂcis of the article ``Effect of perceived brand origin associations on

consumer perceptions of quality''. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for
Emerald.)

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12 NO. 6 2003 407