The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Product versus region of Product

versus region
origin: which wins in of origin
consumer persuasion?
Beatrice Luceri, Sabrina Latusi and Cristina Zerbini 2157
Department of Economics, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Received 26 January 2016
Accepted 18 April 2016
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of highlighting the
geographical area in question – through either pictorial or pictorial-textual formats – in print-
advertising messages for European Union geographical indication (GI) quality-labelled products.
Design/methodology/approach – A 2 × 3 between subjects factorial design was used to manipulate
the type of GI, namely, protected designation of origin vs protected geographical indication, and the
region of origin presentation in the advertisement (absent vs pictorial vs pictorial-textual), while
measuring participant brand attitude and intention to buy (dependent variables).
Findings – Results show a significant main effect of the region of origin presentation on brand
attitude and purchase intention. Communicating the region of origin through pictorial cues leads to
more favourable responses than when there is no reference to it in the advertisement. The presentation
of the region of origin through pictorial-textual cues leads to more positive responses than
communication based just on pictorial cues. No interaction effect between the type of GI and the region
of origin presentation is found.
Originality/value – The study makes a new contribution in the field of communication about typical
food products, since the ability of the geographical area to increase consumers’ purchase intention has
not been systematically tested in an advertising context. To date, there is no strong evidence on how
effective it is to convey the values of the geographical area through its picture and/or name. On a
practical level, the study supports new communication strategies for typical food products in a context
where messages tend to use intrinsic advertising cues that emphasize physical product attributes,
rather than extrinsic advertising cues that leverage intangible product values.
Keywords Geographical indications, Purchase intention, Brand attitude, Print advertising,
Pictorial-textual cues
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
A geographical area can create a unique identity for food products (van Ittersum
et al., 2003) by leveraging the different meanings the area has for consumers. It can
stand for authenticity and tradition (Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1998). It can be synonymous
with health and safety (Kim, 2008; Mørkbak et al., 2010). It can satisfy the sense of
nostalgia for past times in post-modern society (Gilg and Battershill, 1998). In sum,
displaying the origin of products contributes to reducing risk perception in food
consumption, reassuring consumers about where the products come from and how
they have been produced.
As the geographical area is relevant and creates added value in markets that
increasingly demand food safety, quality and authenticity, the provision by the
European Union of a regulatory framework to protect typical food products and
support their differentiation on a regional basis is not surprising. Specifically, British Food Journal
geographical indications (GIs) ensure a link between the characteristics of the product Vol. 118 No. 9, 2016
pp. 2157-2170
(quality, reputation, etc.) and the place of origin through the specification of traditional © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
methods of production and/or local raw ingredients. These labels ensure quality DOI 10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0035
BFJ standards (Dimara and Skuras, 2005), and guarantee that the product has specific
118,9 qualities based on the human expertise and the natural environment in the region of
origin. They therefore act as a regulated extrinsic quality cue (Dimara and Skuras,
2003) because producers have to go through an official control process that guarantees
the effective implementation of the required conditions for production. The objective of
the European GI scheme is to offer strategic opportunities to local productive systems
2158 that have a strong cultural and natural heritage associated with quality attributes
(Boyazoglu, 1999; Türkekul et al., 2010; Sanz Cañada and Muchnik, 2011).
The development of GIs is one of the most interesting phenomena for the agri-food
business in terms of extent and implications (Souza Monteiro and Ventura Lucas, 2001;
Bonetti, 2004), and has thus received great attention in the economic and marketing
literature. Several studies have analysed the influence of these labels on consumers’
perception of and preference for food products (e.g. Bernabéu et al., 2010; Lentz et al.,
2006; Orth et al., 2005; Menapace et al., 2011). There is ample evidence that certification
of origin is the most effective way to convey the values associated with such an origin
to consumers. In contrast, little or no attention has been paid to examining the
persuasion effect of the origin – through either pictorial or textual format, or both – in
the communication of products bearing GI labels.
This study focuses on exploring the effectiveness of highlighting the geographical
area in print advertising messages for European Union GI quality-labelled products.
Specifically, protected designations of origin (PDO) and the protected geographical
indication (PGI) are examined, since they represent an additional level of
quality differentiation within the European GI system. The difference between the
two labels lies in how closely the quality of the product is linked to geography: PDO is a
more restrictive label, because the product must be produced, processed and prepared
in the specific geographical area using recognized know-how; PGI is less stringent in
that at least one production and processing stage must take place in the geographical
area of origin.
To date, the ability of the geographical area to increase consumers’ purchase
intention has not been systematically tested in the advertising context. There is no
strong scientific evidence on how effective it is to convey the values of the geographical
area of origin through a picture of it and/or its name. In addressing a topic thus far
unexplored, the paper has both theoretical and practical implications in relation to
advertising strategies and research. From that point of view, a major contribution
emerges to improving the communication effectiveness of products bearing GI labels in
a context where it is often the product instead of the geographical area being
emphasized in the message. Thus, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of
the effectiveness of intrinsic advertising cues that emphasize the physical product
attributes against extrinsic advertising cues that leverage intangible product values.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the
relevant literature and proposes the research hypotheses, while the “Method” section
presents the experimental design employed. The subsequent sections present
the numerical results and discussion, highlighting theoretical and managerial
implications. The last section states the limitations of the study that point to future
research directions.

Literature review
This section reviews three streams of extant literature from which insights into GI-label
communication can be derived. The first stream acknowledges the influence of the
geographical provenance of a product on consumers’ purchasing decision process; Product
the second stream surveys the relevant research in the field of PDOs and PGIs; the third versus region
stream discusses published studies on pictorial and textual advertising strategy.
of origin
Country-of-origin (COO) (region-of-origin, ROO) effect
For the past five decades, the effect of a product’s place of origin on consumer
perceptions and evaluations has been extensively investigated in the marketing 2159
literature. Systematic research on this topic began with a country of origin perspective
with the seminal work of Schooler (1965). Initially, attention was devoted to
documenting the existence of the COO effect across countries and for a variety of
product categories. Several studies demonstrated such an effect, i.e. that consumers
have different country images or general perceptions about products made in different
countries (Bilkey and Nes, 1982). Subsequently, the focus turned to establishing
theoretical explanations for the COO effect and to determine its antecedents. The study
by Han (1989) stands out in importance positing the halo model and the summary
construct model. According to the author country image can serve as a halo from which
to infer a brand’s product attributes for consumers who are not familiar with products
from that country. When this familiarity exists, country image can become a construct
that summarizes consumers’ beliefs about product attributes, directly affecting their
brand attitude. Basically, the summary effect implies that consumers make
abstractions of product information into country image, while the halo effect implies
inferences about product quality from country image. Just as relevant is the study by
Roth and Romeo (1992) who suggested a product-country matching framework, which
combines the importance of product category dimensions with the perceived country of
origin image along the same dimensions. Resulting matches (or mismatches) can be
favourable or unfavourable, thus originating several strategic implications. Relying on
this evidence, in some sectors manufacturers started linking the place of production
with the quality of products in their communication strategy. For example,
environmental conditions which are associated with Ireland were invoked in
promoting the main products of the Irish dairy industry as alpine scenes and chalets
were depicted by Swiss chocolate manufacturers.
More recently, the academic debate has been enriched investigating the influence on
consumers’ purchasing decision process of other places of origin, such as regions and
provinces. Thus, the terms made-in effect or COO effect were joined by the ROO effect.
The interest in this level of geographic detail lies in the greater homogeneity of a region
compared to the whole country, which can provide a more consistent image.
Leveraging on the region of origin, products can be better differentiated from both
foreign and domestic competitors (e.g. Bruwer and House, 2003; van Ittersum et al.,
2003). To date, there is a general consensus in the literature that the ROO adds value to
a product. This gives meaning to the concept of GIs, introduced by the European Union
to help develop a positive ROO effect for typical food products (Chamorro et al., 2015).

GI labels
Marketing studies have demonstrated that consumers choose food products relying on
their perception of both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics (e.g. Goldstein et al., 2008; Lee
et al., 2006; Shankar et al., 2009). As regards extrinsic information, certifications of
geographical origin play a crucial role in influencing purchasing decision. These results are
confirmed in several studies on consumers’ evaluations of PDO- and PGI-labelled products.
BFJ From an initial focus on consumer preferences for GI labels among other quality
118,9 attributes such as price (e.g. Monteiro and Lucas, 2001; Fotopoulus and Krystallis,
2003), researchers’ attention turned to willingness to pay. A variety of methodological
approaches was used, with a preference for conjoint analysis and choice experiment.
Studies covered different food products in isolation (e.g. Santos and Ribeiro, 2005),
while multi-product analyses were rarely carried out (e.g. van Ittersum et al., 2007).
2160 A general consensus has been reached in the literature that consumers are willing to
pay a premium price for products bearing GI labels, as they equate certification
with high quality.
More recently, researchers have broadened the discussion to assessing consumers’
preferences and willingness to pay for different levels of geographical differentiation
(PDO and PGI) and other types of quality label (specifically, organic labels). For
example, Menapace et al. (2011) showed that Canadian consumers valued extra-virgin
olive oil bearing a PDO more than oil with a PGI label, but the result was not as strong
as that found for GI labelled vs non-GI labelled olive oil. Aprile et al. (2012) tested the
same product and demonstrated a sort of hierarchy in consumers’ willingness to pay,
with the highest premium price being paid for a PDO label, followed by organic
farming labels and then PGI labels.
Prior research has accumulated a wide body of knowledge regarding the
effectiveness of the certification of origin in creating value for the consumers. It is now
established that GI labels are an appropriate way of conveying the values associated
with the region of origin, provided that the consumers recognize and understand them.
Conversely, the persuasion effect of their origin in the communication of products
bearing GI labels has not been systematically investigated.

Pictorial and textual advertising strategy

Prior literature has recognized that the way consumers perceive information
influences purchase behaviour, so that presentation patterns can affect attitude and
purchase intention (e.g. Schlosser, 2003). In print advertising, the geographical area
can be presented through pictorial cues or textual claims or a combination of the two.
Past research highlighted that a message presented in pictorial form is generally
more effective than one presented in textual form: a pictorial stimulus is more
memorable than a textual one (e.g. Mitchell, 1986; Jae et al., 2008). Such results are
traditionally grounded in the dual-coding theory, which assumes different
approaches to processing information: a verbal code specialized in dealing with
language in all its forms, and a non-verbal code specialized in dealing with non-
linguistic objects and events (Paivio, 1986; Sadoski and Paivio, 2004). This theory
suggests that images are easier to remember than textual information, resulting in a
superior recall for pictorial elements (Hong et al., 2004). Furthermore, images are:
processed in a faster and automatic manner; connected to their meaning more directly
than is the case for words (Luna and Peracchio, 2003; Paivio, 1971; Unnava and
Burnkrant, 1991; Carr et al., 1982). In addition, pictures have been repeatedly shown
to evoke a strong emotional response (e.g. Bradley et al., 1992; Lang et al., 1993;
Hsee and Rottenstreich, 2004; Lee et al., 2009; Lieberman et al., 2002). Nevertheless,
the results in the literature appear contradictory when the category of products
considered is varied. According to some studies (Chau et al., 2000; Hong et al., 2004),
pictures had a greater influence than textual information in a grocery context.
In contrast, a study by Kim and Lennon (2008) demonstrated the superiority of
textual information for clothing products.
 Evidence further indicates that pictorial cues can also coordinate with textual cues Product
to enhance advertising impacts. For example, McQuarrie and Mick (1992, 2008) found versus region
that pictorial-textual resonance (i.e. the interplay between an advertisement’s headline
and its pictorial content) has positive effects on how much the advertisement is liked,
of origin
brand attitude and unaided recall of the advertisement’s headline. Thus, the pictorial-
textual message coordination strategy can further improve the efficacy of the message.
In light of that evidence, the pictorial and textual presentations of the region of origin in 2161
a print advertisement should complement each other and jointly enhance consumers’
brand attitude and purchase intention.
More formally, the following hypotheses are stated:
H1. Advertising the region of origin in pictorial form has a positive effect on
consumers’ (a) attitude towards the brand and (b) purchase intention for
products bearing GI labels.
H2. Advertising the region of origin by combining pictorial and textual information
further enhances consumers’ (a) attitude towards the brand and (b) purchase
intention for products bearing GI labels.
The effects hypothesized in H1 and H2 are expected to be stronger for PDOs than PGIs,
due to the different value consumers recognize to these different level of geographical
differentiation (Menapace et al., 2011; Aprile et al., 2012). Hence, the following
hypothesis is formulated:
H3. Advertising the region of origin in any format ( just pictorial or pictorial-textual)
has a greater effect on brand attitude and purchase intention for PDOs than PGIs.

Method
A 2 × 3 between subjects factorial design was used to manipulate the type of GI (PDO
vs PGI) and the region of origin presentation in the advertisement (absent vs pictorial
vs pictorial-textual) while also measuring participant intention to buy the advertised
product and brand attitude (dependent variables).
The study analysed two types of GI: PDO (Melinda PDO apples) and PGI (bresaola
della Valtellina PGI). The presentation of the region of origin was manipulated using a
print advertisement for the two products: (a) without any reference to the region of
origin, either pictorial or textual; (b) with a picture of the region of origin; and (c) with a
picture and textual information about the region of origin. Specifically, for (a) the
advertisement used a picture of a generic natural landscape without any reference to
the product’s region of origin; for (b) the advertisement used a picture of a landmark
from the product’s region of origin (i.e. the mountain ranges of Trentino and Valtellina);
for (c) a textual reference to the region of origin was added to the picture used in (b)
(i.e. the names Trentino and Valtellina). Thus, combining the GI type and the
presentation of the region of origin manipulations, six stimuli advertisements were
created in Photoshop software.
In total, 600 undergraduate students from a large university in the north of Italy
took part in the study. Participants’ average age was 23.15, ranging from 19 to 29
(SD ¼ 2.22); 50 per cent were female and 50 per cent were male. Nobody was vegetarian.
After agreeing to participate, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the
six experimental conditions mentioned above, and the groups were explicitly balanced
for gender.
BFJ The study was conducted in a laboratory where each participant received a booklet
118,9 containing a background questionnaire (with demographic questions), one full-page
advertisement and an advertisement evaluation questionnaire including questions on
the key dependent variable. Subjects were asked to follow the order of the materials in
the booklet. First, they filled out the background questionnaire, then they viewed the
advertisement for about 15 seconds, and then filled out the advertisement evaluation
2162 questionnaire. The entire process took about ten minutes on average.
Participants reported their responses after viewing the advertisement in the subsequent
questionnaire containing the dependent variables. Attitude towards brand was assessed
through four sets of seven-point bipolar adjectives (Putrevu, 2008): “dislike/like”, “bad/
good”, “unfavourable/favourable”, “useless/useful” (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.838). The purchase
intention was measured using three seven-point scales, each anchored by 1 ¼ “unlikely”
and 7 ¼ “likely”. These scales were “How likely is it that you will consider this brand the
next time you purchase the product?”, “The next time I consider purchasing the product,
I will enquire about this brand” and “The next time I buy the product, I will buy this
brand” (adapted from Putrevu, 2008 by Wyllie et al., 2014). An index of purchasing
intention was obtained by averaging the scores on each scale (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.785).
Further, the experimental design made comparisons between products belonging to
different categories (fruit and meat). In order to control for the expected biases generated
by these differences, consumers’ involvement towards the product category was
measured using nine five-point scales, each anchored by 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” and
5 ¼ “strongly agree” (Higie and Feick, 1989). These scales were “apple (bresaola) is part of
my self-image”, “is boring to me”, “portrays an image of me to others”, “is fun to me”,
“is fascinating to me”, “is important to me”, “is exciting to me”, “tells others about me”
and “tells me about other people”. An index of product category involvement was
calculated by averaging the scores on each scale (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.888). The level of
involvement was low for both products, but on average greater for apple (M ¼ 22.39,
SE ¼ 0.41) than for bresaola (M ¼ 21.21, SE ¼ 0.41). This difference was significant
(t(598) ¼ −2.037, po0.05); however, it did represent a small-sized effect (r ¼ 0.08; Cohen’s
D ¼ 0.166). This effect highlighted the weak effect of the cluster variable (product
category) and the significant difference found was attributable only to sample size
(Cohen, 1988).
Data analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS statistical software (relase 22.0).

Results
To test the hypotheses, a two-way independent factorial ANOVA was carried out with
the type of GI and the region of origin presentation as factors, followed by planned
contrasts to compare the effect of the ways in which the region of origin was presented.
The cell means and standard deviations of the variables of interest are shown
in Table I with reference to brand attitude and purchase intention as dependent variables.
As Table I shows, the mean score for brand attitude was higher when the region of
origin was present (M ¼ 19.62 for pictorial presentation and M ¼ 20.65 for pictorial-
textual presentation) than when it was absent (M ¼ 17.00). The main effect of the region of
origin presentation on brand attitude (Table II) was significant (F(2,594) ¼ 30.01, po0.01).
The mean score for purchase intention was higher when the region of origin was
present (M ¼ 11.61 for pictorial presentation and M ¼ 14.46 for pictorial-textual
presentation) than when it was absent (M ¼ 9.22), as shown in Table I. Our results
indicate that there is a significant main effect of the region of origin presentation on
purchase intention (F(2,594) ¼ 103.39, p o 0.01; Table II).
 Brand attitude Purchase intention
Product
Type of GI Region of origin presentation Mean SD Mean SD versus region
of origin
PGI Absent 17.41 4.39 8.71 4.03
Pictorial 19.52 4.96 11.07 4.65
Pictorial-textual 20.96 5.29 14.45 3.55
PDO Absent 16.60 5.21 9.72 3.49
Pictorial 19.72 4.31 12.14 3.13 2163
Pictorial-textual 20.34 4.86 14.47 2.76
Total Absent 17.00 4.83 9.22 3.79 Table I.
Pictorial 19.62 4.63 11.61 3.99 Cell means and
Pictorial-textual 20.65 5.08 14.46 3.17 standard deviations

Brand attitude Purchase intention

df F p-value df F p-value
Table II.
Type of GI 1 1.07 0.301 1 5.51 0.019 Main and interaction
Region of origin presentation 2 30.01 0.000 2 103.39 0.000 effects of the region
Type of GI × region of origin presentation 3 14.41 0.543 3 1.30 0.272 of origin presentation
Error 594 594 for type of GI

Analysis of planned contrast revealed the existence of significant differences between

the absence of the region of origin and the pictorial presentation of the region of origin
in the advertisement for both of the two dependent variables. Specifically,
communicating the region of origin through pictorial cues leads to more favourable
responses than the absence of any reference to the region of origin (Table III).
These findings fully support H1a and H1b.

Dependent variable
Brand attitude Purchase intention

Absent vs pictorial
Contrast estimate −2.62 −2.39
Hypothesized value 0 0
Difference −2.62 −2.39
SE 0.485 0.365
p-value 0.000 0.000
95% confidence interval for difference
Lower bound −3.57 −3.11
Upper bound −1.66 −1.67
Pictorial vs pictorial-textual
Contrast estimate −1.030 −2.85
Hypothesized value 0 0
Difference −1.030 −2.85
SE 0.485 0.365
p-value 0.034 0.000
95% confidence interval for difference Table III.
Lower bound −1.983 −3.57 Planned contrast
Upper bound −0.077 −2.14 results
BFJ Planned contrasts showed significant differences between the pictorial presentation
118,9 and the pictorial-textual presentation of the region of origin in the advertisement for
both brand attitude and purchase intention. As expected, communicating the region of
origin through pictorial-textual cues leads to more favourable responses
than communication based just on pictorial cues (Table III). These results support
H2a and H2b.
2164 No interaction effects were found between the type of GI and the region of origin
presentation on brand attitude (F(2,594) ¼ 0.61, pW0.10) and intention to buy
(F(2,594) ¼ 1.303, pW0.10) (Figures 1 and 2). This indicates that the different types of
GI were equally affected by the presentation of the region of origin in the advertisement
(through either pictorial cues or pictorial-textual claims). Therefore, H3 is not supported.

Discussion
The food sector has a long tradition of linking place of production with quality of
products. This perspective has been embraced by the EU with the GI schema for those
products that are expression of the geographic individuality of places. Thus, place
name and production become inseparable (Henchion and McIntyre, 2000) and GIs allow
products from a region to be recognized as being of a particular quality and unique to
that region (Moran, 1993). In this context, a variety of cues (e.g. specific landscapes,
cultural traditions, historic monuments) can be used to communicate places and spaces
as a source of differentiation for GI products. Nevertheless, the ability of the
geographical area to increase consumers’ purchase intention has not been
systematically tested in an advertising context.
The focus of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of the
communication of the region of origin in print advertising messages for European
Union GI quality labels. Overall, it provides empirical support to the appropriateness of

Brand Attitude
Type
21.00 of GIs
PGI
PDO

20.00
Estimated Marginal Means

19.00

18.00

17.00

Figure 1.
Interaction of type of
16.00
GI and region of
origin presentation
Absence Pictorial Pictorial-Textual
on brand attitude
Region of origin presentation
 Purchase Intention Product
Type
of GIs
versus region
PGI of origin
PDO
14.00
Estimated Marginal Means

2165
12.00

10.00

Figure 2.
Interaction of type of
GI and region of
8.00
origin presentation
on purchase
Absence Pictorial Pictorial-Textual
intention
Region of origin presentation

highlighting the geographical area to induce a positive brand attitude and purchase
intention in consumers.
The results demonstrate the ability of extrinsic advertising cues that leverage
intangible product values – namely, the region of origin – to create value. In a context
where intrinsic advertising cues that emphasize the product’s physical attributes are
often used, regional images and the environmental qualities they represent proved to be a
way to create persuasion. Additionally, pictorial and textual cues interact with each
other: the geographical area exerts a more positive influence on consumers’ brand
attitude and purchase intention when it is conveyed in pictorial-textual format rather
than just in a pictorial one. Last but not least, the study found that the two different types
of GI, PDO and PGI, both derive benefits from the presentation of the region of origin in
the advertisement, regardless of the format employed (pictorial or pictorial-textual).
The study has useful implications for both marketing academics and professionals.
On the one hand, by addressing a topic thus far unexplored, it contributes to a deeper
understanding of the persuasive effect of the geographical area in a print advertising
context. On the other hand, it provides practical insights into how to optimize such an
advertising effect.
From a theoretical point of view, the study enriches the literature by demonstrating
the effectiveness of conveying the values of the geographical area of origin through its
name and a picture of it. It therefore further validates the pictorial-textual superiority
effect that has been speculated about in previous research in advertising
(e.g. McQuarrie and Mick, 1992, 2008). Specifically, the geographical area appears to
be more effective in enhancing persuasion when presented through pictorial-textual
cues (vs pictorial cues). Contrary to what was hypothesized, PDO compared to PGI did
not derive a greater persuasion effect by using the geographical area in the print
advertisement message. In other words, a hierarchy in the ability of the origin to create
value for the consumers did not emerge. Potential explanations for these unexpected
BFJ findings may be attributed to a number of reasons, including that consumers perceive
118,9 PDO- and PGI-labelled products as typical products, regardless of the strength of the
link with the region of which they are expressions. So, even when the link between the
product’s quality and the geographical area is weaker – as in the case of PGI –
exploiting the geographical area in the communication strategy is worthwhile. When
developing such a communication strategy, selecting a picture able to symbolize in the
2166 best manner the geographical values incorporated in the product is the key to success.
Indeed, different landmarks may exist (e.g. a lake, a mountain range, an historical
monument), but each of them can match a specific product better than another one, as
suggested by Roth and Romeo (1992) at a country level. This issue is strictly related to
consumers’ awareness of the region of origin. The present study considered products
belonging to regions with already strongly developed, and somewhat unique images
(Trentino and Valtellina). Thus, further research is needed to assess if the
communication of the place of origin is also effective for less popular regions.
From a marketing professional standpoint, the study empirically demonstrates that
presenting the region of origin in pictorial and textual formats in print advertisements
can result in better brand attitude and stronger purchase intention for GI products.
This result provides advertising practitioners with empirical support for using the
geographical area in print advertisements in a context where it is often the product,
instead of the geographical area, that is emphasized in the message. It also draws
attention to the importance of the pictorial-textual coordination strategy as the two
formats of claims (pictorial and textual) complement each other and jointly enhance
consumers’ brand attitude and intention to buy.
Establishing associations with the region of origin may be useful for the promotion
of typical products in the domestic market as well as in the export market for both
producers and consortia of partner firms. Moreover, cross-product communication
campaigns can be considered to effectively manage the regional images as a valuable
resource. This requires that several GI labelled products share the same values of their
region of origin and that these values are symbolized by the same specific landmark.

Limitations and future research

This study is constrained by some limitations that point to areas for further future
research on a topic that is of clear interest for both academics and practitioners.
First, the manipulation described is not replicated in the present research. Given the
variety of possibilities for creative advertising, similar messages might be conveyed in
a number of other ways. Indeed, future research might replicate the study by
employing alternative methods of execution (for pictorial and pictorial-textual cues) to
further validate the persuasive results here reported. This gives the opportunity to
overcome the possible confounding factor due to the stimuli used in the present
study, that is the generic landscape stimuli is less dramatic and striking than the
regional specific ones. Therefore, differences in respondents evaluations could be
affected by the emotions evoked by the level of drama in the images rather than their
regional specificity.
Second, only print advertising was considered in this study. Future research is
therefore encouraged to involve other communication media. This might provide
insights into understanding the boundary conditions in which communicating the
region of origin is effective in influencing brand attitude and purchase intention.
Third, future research might consider an individual knowledge factor to further
understand the conditions that qualify the persuasion effect of the geographical area on
consumers with different levels of experience of products bearing GI labels. Thus, the Product
consumers’ familiarity with the region, the product and GI labels should be considered versus region
in the analysis. Some studies found that the ROO effect was more pronounced among
purchasers with a better understanding of GIs and prior awareness of the existence of
of origin
regional products bearing these labels (e.g. Chamorro et al., 2015).
Fourth, it seems worthwhile to examine whether a specific regional image matches
more than one specific product to ascertain the possibility to gain costs economies 2167
thanks to multi-product communication campaigns.
Finally, given the commonalities between print advertising and packaging
communication, it would be valuable to extend the analysis to the packaging to ascertain
whether current results are supported in this specific marketing communication setting.

References
Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V. and Nayga, R.M. Jr (2012), “Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels:
the case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 158-165.
Bernabéu, R., Díaz, M. and Olmeda, M. (2010), “Origin vs organic in manchego cheese: which is
more important?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 8, pp. 887-901.
Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), “Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Bonetti, E. (2004), “The effectiveness of meta-brands in the typical product industry: mozzarella
cheese”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos 10-11, pp. 746-766.
Boyazoglu, J. (1999), “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and specific quality products
(PDO, PGI, etc.), with special reference to Europe and the Mediterranean basin”, Medit,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 4-7.
Bradley, M.M., Greenwald, M.K., Petry, M.C. and Lang, P.J. (1992), “Remembering pictures:
pleasure and arousal in memory”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 379-390.
Bruwer, J. and House, M. (2003), “Has the era of regional branding arrived for the Australian wine
industry? Some perspectives”, The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and
Winemaker, December, pp. 56-61, available at: http://winetitles.com.au/gwm/
Carr, T.H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R.D. and Parmelee, C.M. (1982), “Words, pictures, and priming:
on semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information
processing”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 757-777.
Chamorro, A., Rubio, S. and Miranda, F.J. (2015), “The region-of-origin (ROO) effect on purchasing
preferences: the case of a multiregional designation of origin”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 820-839.
Chau, P.Y., Au, G. and Tam, K.Y. (2000), “Impact of information presentation modes on online
shopping: an empirical evaluation of a broadband interactive shopping service”, Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dimara, E. and Skuras, D. (2005), “Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food and
drink products: a European Union case study”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Dimara, E. and Skuras, D. (2003), “Consumer evaluations of product certification, geographic
association and traceability in Greece”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 5-6,
pp. 690-705.
BFJ Fotopoulus, C. and Krystallis, A. (2003), “Quality labels as a marketing advantage: the case of
PDO Zagora apples in the Greek market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 10,
118,9 pp. 1350-1374.
Gilg, A. and Battershill, M. (1998), “Quality farm food in Europe: a possible alternative to the
industrialised food market and to current agri-environmental policies: lessons from
France”, Food Policy, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
2168 Goldstein, R., Almenberg, J., Dreber, A., Emerson, J.W., Herschkowitsch, A. and Katz, J. (2008),
“Do more expensive wines taste better? Evidence from a large sample of blind tastings”,
Journal of Wine Economics, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Han, C.M. (1989), “Country image: halo or summary construct?”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 222-229.
Henchion, M. and McIntyre, B. (2000), “Regional imagery and quality products: the Irish
experience”, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 8, pp. 630-644.
Higie, R.A. and Feick, L.F. (1989), “Enduring involvement: conceptual and measurement issues”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 690-696.
Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L. and Tam, K.Y. (2004), “Designing product listing pages on e-commerce
websites: an examination of presentation mode and information format”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 481-503.
Hsee, C.K. and Rottenstreich, Y. (2004), “Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology
of value”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 23-30.
Ilbery, B. and Kneafsey, M. (1998), “Product and place: promoting quality products and services
in the lagging rural regions of the European Union”, European Urban and Regional Studies,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 329-341.
Jae, H., Delvecchio, D.S. and Cowles, D. (2008), “Picture-text incongruency in print advertisements
among low‐and high‐literacy consumers”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 439-451.
Kim, M. and Lennon, S. (2008), “The effects of and verbal information on attitudes and
purchase intentions in internet shopping”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 146-178.
Kim, R. (2008), “Japanese consumers’ use of extrinsic and intrinsic cues to mitigate risky food
choices”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Lang, P.J., Greenwald, M.K., Bradley, M.M. and Hamm, A.O. (1993), “Looking at pictures: affective,
facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions”, Psychophysiology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 261-273.
Lee, L., Amir, O. and Ariely, D. (2009), “In search of homo economicus: cognitive noise and the
role of emotion in preference consistency”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 173-187.
Lee, L., Frederick, S. and Ariely, D. (2006), “Try it, you’ll like it: the influence of expectation,
consumption and revelation on preferences for beer”, Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 12,
pp. 1054-1058.
Lentz, P., Holzmüller, H.H. and Schirrmann, E. (2006), “City-of-origin effects in the German beer
market: transferring an international construct to a local context”, Advances in
International Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 251-274, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
pdfplus/10.1016/S1474-7979%2806%2917009-X
Lieberman, M.D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D.T. and Trope, Y. (2002), “Reflexion and reflection: a social
cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference”, Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 199-249, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/
bookseries/00652601/34
Luna, D. and Peracchio, L.A. (2003), “Visual and linguistic processing of ads by bilingual Product
consumers”, in Scott, L.M. and Batra, R. (Eds), Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response
Perspective, Routledge, Erlbaum, NJ, pp. 153-175.
versus region
McQuarrie, E.F. and Mick, D.G. (1992), “On resonance: a critical pluralistic inquiry into
of origin
advertising rhetoric”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 180-197.
McQuarrie, E.F. and Mick, D.G. (2008), “A laboratory study of the effect of verbal rhetoric versus
repetition when consumers are not directed to process advertising”, International Journal 2169
of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 287-312.
Menapace, L., Colson, G., Grebitus, C. and Facendola, M. (2011), “Consumers’ preferences for
geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market”, European Review
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 193-212.
Mitchell, A. (1986), “The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand
attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 12-24.
Monteiro, D.M. and Lucas, M.R. (2001), “Conjoint measurement of preferences for traditional
cheeses in Lisbon”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 414-424.
Moran, W. (1993), “Rural space as intellectual property”, Political Geography, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 263-277.
Mørkbak, M.R., Christensen, T. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2010), “Consumer preferences for safety
characteristics in pork”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 7, pp. 775-791.
Orth, U.R., McGarry Wolf, M. and Dodd, T.H. (2005), “Dimensions of wine region equity and their
impact on consumer preferences”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 88-97.
Paivio, A. (1971), Imagery and Verbal Processes, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY.
Paivio, A. (1986), Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Putrevu, S. (2008), “Consumer responses toward sexual and nonsexual appeals: the influence of
involvement, need for cognition (NFC), and gender”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 57-70.
Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), “Matching product catgeory and country image perceptions:
a framework for managing country-of-origin effects (corrected title: matching product
category and country image perceptions: a framework for managing country-of-origin
effects)”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 477-497.
Sadoski, M. and Paivio, A. (2004), “A dual coding theoretical model of reading”, in Ruddell, R.B.
and Unrau, N.J. (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th ed., International
Reading Association, Newark, pp. 1329-1362.
Santos, J.F. and Ribeiro, J.C. (2005), “Product attribute saliency and region of origin: some
empirical evidence from Portugal”, 99th Seminar of the European Association of
Agricultural Economists, Copenhagen, 24-27 August.
Sanz Cañada, J. and Muchnik, J. (2011), “Ancrage et identité territoriale des systèmes agroalimentaires
localisés”, Introduction au dossier, Economie Rurale, Vol. 322, Mars-Avril, pp. 4-10.
Schlosser, A.E. (2003), “Computers as situational cues: implications for consumer product
cognitions and attitudes”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 103-112.
Schooler, R.D. (1965), “Product bias in the Central American Common Market”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 394-397.
Shankar, M., Levitan, C., Prescott, J. and Spence, C. (2009), “The influence of color and label
information on flavor perception”, Chemosensory Perception, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 53-58.
BFJ Souza Monteiro, D. and Ventura Lucas, M.R. (2001), “Conjoint measurement of preferences for
traditional cheeses in Lisbon”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 414-424.
118,9
Türkekul, B., Günden, C., Abay, C. and Miran, B. (2010), “Competitiveness of Mediterranean
countries in the olive oil market”, New Medit, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-46.
Unnava, H.R. and Burnkrant, R.E. (1991), “An imagery-processing view of the role of pictures in
print advertise-ments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 226-231.
2170 van Ittersum, K., Candel, M.J.J.M. and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (2003), “The influence of the image of a
product’s region of origin on the product evaluation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56
No. 3, pp. 215-226.
van Ittersum, K., Meulenberg, M.T.G., van Trijp, H.C.M. and Candel, M.J.J.M. (2007), “Consumers
appreciation of regional certification labels: a Pan-European study”, Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Wyllie, J., Carlson, J. and Rosenberger, P.J. III (2014), “Examining the influence of different levels
of sexual-stimuli intensity by gender on advertising effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 30 Nos 7-8, pp. 697-718.

Corresponding author
Cristina Zerbini can be contacted at: cristina.zerbini@nemo.unipr.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com