The effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers' product evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to investigate both Western and Eastern corporate branding thoughts and examine the interrelation among four corporate branding dimensions (i.e. corporate name, image, reputation and loyalty) and their joint impact on consumers' product evaluation. Design/methodology/approach Building on extensive literature, a model of consumers' product evaluation that includes the major determinants of corporate branding is proposed. Based on a sample of 218 Japanese and American consumers, structural equation modeling and general linear model analyses are used to test hypotheses. Findings The research reveals that Japanese and American consumers have different perceptions with respect to the effect of corporate image and corporate loyalty. The corporate name was found to have a significant impact on corporate image and corporate reputation was found to have a significant affect on corporate loyalty. The corporate reputation is also found to be a mediator of the corporate image's effect on consumers' product evaluation. Practical implications The paper suggests that marketers should carefully consider the corporate name when designing their branding strategies. Marketers are also called on to adapt their corporate branding approaches to fit each marketing environment and enhance corporate loyalty to reduce the switching behavior of consumers. Originality/value The paper clarifies the interrelation among the four corporate branding dimensions and shows that consumers of different cultures do not perceive in the same way the impact of corporate branding determinants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".