The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

Brand origin in an emerging Brand origin in

an emerging
market: perceptions of market
Indian consumers
Zhongqi Jin and Bal Chansarkar 283
Middlesex University Business School, London, UK, and
N.M. Kondap
Narsee Manjee Institute of Management and Higher Studies,
Deemed University, Vile Parle(w), Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to examine the usefulness of the brand origin concept in shaping the
perceptions of Indian consumers.
Design/methodology/approach – Guided by recent advance in social identity theory and social
motivation theory, a dynamic iterative model of brand origin recognition is proposed. Six hypotheses
were tested using a sample of 145 consumers from west of India. Using paired t-test, average
consumer preference of brand origin was analysed for different product categories. A factor analysis
with varimax rotation for determining band images was also carried out.
Findings – The results demonstrated that most consumers can recognise the brand origin correctly
but the power of recognition decreases when the brand has a long history of ‘‘localization’’.
Distinguished trajectories of consumer perceptions of foreign brands and domestics brands were
projected, and this allowed one to extend existing country of origin (CO) research to brand of origin
research.
Practical implications – The results implied that brand origin is a useful concept for companies
engaging in an emerging market such as India. But the changing nature of the concept requires
careful steering and nurturing if companies want to attach a positive value to its brand via brand
origin association.
Originality/value – Research into CO effect has been extensive. However, few studies examine
empirically the effect of ‘‘brand origin’’ which is more appropriate in emerging market in today’s
increasingly competitive global environment. This paper is a first to explore the validity of the
concept of brand origin in the Indian market.
Keywords Brands, Country of origin, India
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Country of origin (CO) effect was recognised as an important phenomenon in
international trade at least one hundred years ago (Peris et al., 1993). It has drawn great
attention in the consumer buying behaviour literature since 1960s (Ditchter, 1962;
Schooler, 1965) and indeed has become one of the most widely researched areas in the
discipline (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002). It has been found that CO influences
consumer perceptions in at least 3 dimensions: as a purchasing cue for quality
indication, as symbolic and emotional attachment to consumer and as a match with
consumer’s social and personal norms (Ahmed et al., 2002). Despite over forty years
research, the CO effect is criticised as one of the least understood phenomena (Verlegh Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics
and Steenkamp, 1999). Furthermore, in an age of intensive international competition Vol. 18 No. 4, 2006
pp. 283-302
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors thank Dr Paurav Shukla and Professor Ifan Shepherd for their helpful 1355-5855
comments to an earlier version of the paper. DOI 10.1108/13555850610703254
APJML and globalisation, the concept is increasingly under scrutiny (Thakor and Kohli, 1996).
18,4 For example, the Sony Walkman might be designed in the USA, manufactured in
Thailand but sold in Europe. Yet it is perceived as a Japanese product. The country of
manufacture of Sony Walkman becomes less important than the cultural value
associated with the Sony brand. The connotations associated with such different layer
and depth of product-country image as ‘‘made/designed/assembled/distributed/sold-in’’
make conventional CO research less relevant (Ger et al., 1999). From a recent meta-
284 analysis of forty-one studies into CO effect, Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999) concluded
that the CO effect is not affected by multi-national production. Some scholars have
argued that the concept of CO should be replaced by a more appropriate culture of
origin or brand origin concept (Thakor and Kohli, 1996). Recent studies have shown
that culture of origin or brand origin could be a more influential cue in determining
consumer purchasing behaviour (Lim and O’Cass, 2001).
However, there are few empirical studies evaluating the importance of brand origin
(Thakor and Lavack, 2003) and even fewer studies looking at the issue from an Indian
perspective (Bandyopadhay, 2001). India is the second most populous country in the
world with an estimated population of 1.08 billion (Population Clock, 2005) and it may
within a decade be the most populous country. As a developing country, India is also
culturally very different from the West. India consumers demonstrate different perhaps
unique purchasing behaviour due to these differences (Batra et al., 2000), for example,
the consumption of wine, chocolate, and fashion clothes. Due to the diversity of the
population, it is not unusual to see that a bullock cart, a bicycle, and a BMW 7-series
car travelling on the same roads in India. And a new generation of young Indians are
struggling to embrace Western consumerism against the values of self-denial
embodied by Mahatma Gandhi (Dhillon, 2005). It is therefore critically important to
understand consumer perceptions in such a vast and growing market (Business Week,
2003). Given the increasing trend in globalisation, it is inevitable that the perceptions of
India consumers are influenced by the presence of brands from different countries. We
select five countries in this project as basis of comparison: UK, India, China, Japan, and
USA. The rationale of selecting such five countries will be described in detail later in
the methodology section. In the context of consumers in India, we address the
following research questions:
. Is there such a thing as brand origin? In other words, do consumers use brand
origin rather than simply CO as a purchasing cue?
. What are the determinants of brand origin identification? Does social motivation
or social identity play a role?
. What are the implications of such brand-country associations?
To understand the difference of consumer perceptions between India and developed
countries, we use UK as a typical example given that India has had a long association
with UK and consumers has a good general knowledge of the country.
The paper is organised as follows. Firstly, we propose a conceptual framework of
brand origin recognition combining three themes of research: social motivation theory,
social identification theory, and CO research. Then we empirically test the hypotheses
proposed using a sample survey of India consumers, and consumer perceptions
regarding different product categories and different brands from five countries are
explored. Finally, detailed comparison between UK brands and India brands is
presented.
Conceptual framework Brand origin in
We adopt the definition of brand origin from Thakor and Kohli (1996) which is referred
to as the place, region or country to which the brand is perceived to belong by its target
an emerging
consumers. The definition is different from conventional CO definition in at least two market
aspects: first of all, it stresses consumer perceptions of a brand relating to its origin,
where the product is actually produced may not be as important as the perceived
birthplace that consumers affiliate the brand to. Secondly, the definition makes it
possible to link the concept of brand origin as part of brand image and therefore
285
provides an embedded theoretical base for researchers to explore the concept not
simply as a purchasing cue but as an integral part of branding theory and mechanism.
Our conceptual framework is drawn from three theoretical backgrounds: social
identity theory, social motivation theory, and CO research. A simplified mechanism of
brand origin recognition is illustrated in Figure 1. By brand origin association we mean
the activities or processes that consumers are engaged in to associate the brand with
images of a particular place or region or country. We argue that brand origin
association is motivated from people’s social desire to move from an intrinsic
orientation to an extrinsic orientation and their desire to identify themselves to be
socially acceptable and identifiable by peers or certain groups of society. It has a direct
impact on perceptions of the brand and ultimately, the image of the brand. The image
of the brand often provides information rewards which reinforces people’s social desire
to simplify or summarise beliefs regarding a particular brand. In other words, brand
origin recognition is a dynamic iterative process. Brand origin association activities
become less important when such social desire or motivation is no longer necessary or
the brand becomes such a commodity that no longer provides positive competence
information awards for consumers to associate the brand with its origin.

Social motivation theory

Social motivation theory has received much attention in the last two decades (Geen,
1991). According to Pyszczynski et al. (1997), ‘‘convincing evidence now exists that
people are motivated to obtain (among other things) positive evaluations of themselves
and the groups to which they belong, favourable public images, consistency among
their cognitions, and benign beliefs about the world in which they live, p.1’’. The
opening up of markets in developing countries, the availability and widespread

Social Motivation H1

Brand origin Perceptions of

association the brand
H5, H6

Social identity
Figure 1.
H2, H3, H4 The dynamics of brand
origin recognition process
APJML promotion of brands provide great opportunities for consumers to differentiate
18,4 themselves via their choice of brands (Dhillon, 2005). There are several motivational
aspects which activate a brand recognition process. First of all, brand origin
recognition is a process of cognitive evaluation in which brand origin acts as a reward
or incentive to simplify matters. It helps individuals to shift their focus from intrinsic
orientation to an extrinsic orientation, where minimization of efforts may be more
important than novelty and stimulation (Pittman and Heller, 1987). In addition, brand
286 recognition is also a process of symbolic representation with which individuals could
use to enhance their status of display, to overcome their insecurity and inferiority, or to
increase their overall competence (Batra et al., 2000). Finally, people maintain the value
they hold and tend to match those values with the image of the brand. Therefore,
people tend to associate brands with countries consciously or subconsciously
irrespective of where the actual products or components of the products are made.
Indeed, brand origin concept only makes sense if only there is an intention from
consumers who link brands to countries (Ger et al., 1999). We propose that:
H1. Consumers associate brands with countries where the brands are originally
developed rather than with the countries the brands are produced. The
association becomes weaker over time as the brands are produced locally.

Social identity theory

Brand origin recognition is a complicated process. People tend to associate brand
origin to certain characteristics of the brand such as quality, price, and values. This can
be partly explained by social identity theory (Hogg, 1992). In other words, there is a
tendency of using extrinsic cue (such as countries or places) to replace intrinsic
features (such as price or performance), while compounded by other factors such as
familiarity of the consumers with the brands or countries (Han, 1989). Social identity
theory defines self in terms of personal identity and social identity. Individuals shift
their focus from personal to social identity, which influences their perceptions,
cognitions, evaluations, and attributions about issues and events. Individuals want to
make sense in the increasingly complicated world and one way of doing this is from the
shift to social identity, the categorisation from which they belong to and to be
recognised as part of (Burgess, 1999). Batra et al. (2000) argued that such effort could be
stronger in developing countries where a growing number of middle class consumers
increasingly assert themselves and stress the importance of positional values, which
orients toward great awareness of social status and freedom of choice. In the context of
India, the country has had a long tradition of a caste system, which is gradually being
replaced by a class system where social disparity and inequity are increasing. Given
such difference in social identity and desire, it is perceivable that different consumers
classify brand origin with a different degree of success related to their knowledge level
of different countries, their social status, and their income level as suggested in Lim
and O’cass (2001) and Ahmed and d’Astous (2001). We therefore propose:
H2. Perceived consumer knowledge level differ between those who classify brand
origin successfully and those who classify it incorrectly.
H3. Perceived consumer social status differ between those who classify brand
origin successfully and those who classify it incorrectly.
H4. Brand origin evaluations are related to income: higher income individuals will
show higher prejudice towards foreign products.
CO research Brand origin in
Since Schooler’s (1965) seminal work on the subject, CO research flourished in the last an emerging
four decades. The first twenty years of CO research (from early 1960s to early 1980s)
mainly focused on research into CO as a product evaluation cue for consumers from market
developed countries such as USA and the UK. Bilkey and Nes (1982) provide an
excellent review of this stage of research. From the early 1980s to 1990s, major research
constructs of CO research were developed and used (e.g. Han, 1989). Although the main
conceptual base of development at this period is still focused on consumers from
287
developed countries, CO research was broadened to include the viewpoint of some
developing country consumers. Several meta-analyses of the research results are
available for this stage of research (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Verlegh and
Steenkamp, 1999). Although the research into CO was extensive, both meta-analyses
concluded that the CO effect was least understood and the research findings were
difficult to be of any practical use apart from seemingly obvious CO effect and
stereotypes. Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002) built a database of over 750 major
publications in this area. They summarised nine categories of major findings from
existing literature. Most important of all is the recognition that national images are
powerful stereotypes that influence behaviours in all types of target markets. In line
with past research in CO, we therefore propose that:
H5. Consumer preference of brand origin is associated to product category, e.g.
high tech product is preferred for brand origin of a developed country,
whereas brand origin of a local nature is preferred when the brand belongs to
a product category associated with domestic produce such as agriculture
products or souvenirs.
However, the effect of such national images varies depending on the situation and it
does not dwell on a single point. Peris et al. (1993) used a 16 item preference points
which was demonstrated in a form of trajectory, a curve linking the 16 preference
points. Assuming that there are associations between brands and countries, it is
important to find out such trajectories of brand preferences from which consumers
associate different brand origin with. Batra et al. (2000) further suggested that the
majority of past research was focused on the viewpoint of consumers from developed
countries, whereas the perceptions of consumers of developing countries may be
different due to significant differences in social motivation and social identity. It is
therefore important to identify such trajectories from an emerging market point of
view. Following from Peris et al. (1993), we extend the trajectory curve of CO into brand
origin comparison under the context of India.
Similar to the dual-country comparison method used by Peris et al. (1993), we
compare the differences in consumer preference between brands originating mainly
from the UK and India. For historical reasons, people from India generally have in-
depth knowledge of the UK and also mixed feelings towards the former colonial power.
Familiarity with CO provides a stable, summarise effect as documented in the CO
literature (Han, 1989). Mixed feelings of Indian consumers towards the UK is relevant
here in at least two aspects: foreignness and localness. Due to long-term colonial
control in the past, many customs and habits from the UK became part of Indian
culture, as have some products or brands from the UK. In the meantime, many
practices from the UK are still viewed as from the West, and therefore, foreign to Indian
consumers. Non-localness provides a predicable evaluation cue for Indian consumers,
sometimes not necessarily a source of resentment but rather a source of aspiration,
APJML especially among those consumers which are recognised as (or, aspiring to be) social
elite or well-educated, middle class consumers (Batral et al., 2000). We would therefore
18,4 expect a similar effect of brand origin from that of CO. In general we propose,
H6. Brands from the UK are perceived to be significantly different from those of
India. In particular, we assume that
H6a. Brands from the UK are perceived more expensive than those from India.
288 H6b. Brands from the UK are perceived as unreasonably priced than those from
India.
H6c. Brands from the UK are perceived to have better workmanship than those
from India.
H6d. Brands from the UK are perceived to be more exclusive than those from
India
H6e. Brands from the UK are perceived more technically advanced than those
from India.
H6f. Brands from the UK are perceived more reliable than those from India.
H6g. Brands from the UK are perceived more luxurious than brands from India.
H6h. Brands from the UK are perceived more innovative whereas brands from
India are perceived as more imitative.
H6i. Brands from the UK are perceived to have higher quality that brand from
India.
H6j. Brands from the UK are perceived to be of modern design whereas brands
from India are perceived as more traditional in terms of design style.
H6k. Brands from the UK are perceived to be mass produced whereas brands from
India are perceived more towards hand-made.
H6l. People in India are proud of their ownership of India brands than UK brands.
H6m. Brands from the UK are perceived to have better performance than those
from India.
H6n. Brands from the UK are perceived to have better appearance than brands
from India.
H6o. Brands from the UK are perceived to have more choices than those from
India.
H6p. Brands from the UK are perceived to have an upper class image than those
from India.

Research method
To be comparable with previous research on CO orientation, we followed the
methodology as described in Peris et al. (1993). Given the complicated nature of the
brand origin concept, however, we focused our efforts on the consumers of one country
i.e. India. A self-completion questionnaire was administered during September 2003, to
the post-graduate students on full time and part-time programmes in a reputable
institute of management in Mumbai, India. Of a total of 180 respondents, 145 were
entered into the data analysis. No significant difference was found between the invalid
35 respondents and the 145 entered into data analysis in terms of age, gender, social
status, and household income. The cohort as such represents upper class, educated, Brand origin in
and mostly working as middle executives. The characteristics of our sample are shown
in Table I.
an emerging
The respondents were asked perceptions of brands from five countries: India, China, market
UK, Japan, and USA. The five countries were chosen due to following reasons: India
and China were selected to represent large emerging economies with extensive internal
markets. UK was chosen because of its long traditional relationship with India and
USA to represent for its role in globalisation. Japan was selected as a developed
289
economy with a link for joint venture for production in India- for example Maruti car.
The information collected includes the socio-economic characteristics of respondents
such as: age, sex, marital status, and gross annual income. Other areas investigated are:
knowledge about economic development of each of the five countries, similarity between
countries, choice of brands originating from a country, preferences for brand origin in
different product categories, feelings about brands originating from India and UK and
association of brands with a country. Brand preferences were measured for the following
categories, which included both global and local brands: cars, soft drinks, consumer
brands, personal computers, and fashion clothing. The brands were selected on the basis
that they corresponded to different product categories: consumer durables (Maruti,
Toyota, and Ford), frequent consumption (Brook Bond, Nescafe, Cola, Amul, Colgate, and
Cadburys), technological (Siemens, Sony, and Microsoft), pharmaceutical (Crocin) and
fashion brands (Arrow and Levi). The instrument measuring feelings about
characteristics of brand perception was adopted from Peris et al. (1993).
We conducted preliminary statistical analysis to generate the sample profile,
identify relevant variables (such as social status and income). For further analysis in
conjunction with the respondents’ perception and preferences. We tested the bivariate
correlations among different brand characteristics for both India and UK. We
examined the respondents’ preferences of brand origin when buying each category of
products. Average consumer preference of brand origin across the five countries for
different product categories was plotted to study the underlying patterns of brand
preferences.

Sample size n ¼ 145 Percentages

Sex
Male 78.9
Female 21.1
Age in years
20-30 90.3
31þ 6.2
No reply 3.5
Gross monthly household income (Rupees)
Up to 15,000 20.7
15,001
30,000 20.7
30,001
50,000 24.1
50,001þ 26.2
No reply 8.3
Social status
Executive 40.7 Table I.
Non-executive 59.3 Sample profile
APJML After initial statistical analysis, we conducted a chi-squared test of association for
categorical variables such as identification of country of brand origin with income,
18,4 preferences, and social status. Pairwise differences of perceptions of brands originating
from India and UK were tested using the t-test. We also conducted factor analysis to
identify the underlying factors about the perceptions of brands among the consumers.
We used varimax rotation to facilitate the interpretation of the factors.
290 Results
In line with Peris et al. (1993), we present the preference chart first. But instead of using
CO against product category, we plot the chart using brand origin with product
category. Then, we test the six hypotheses proposed earlier, which is followed by
further factor analysis of consumer preferences of two brand origins.

Preferences for brands in specific product categories

In this section, we aim to measure the preference of Indian consumers for the
brands developed in the five countries. Respondents were asked only to indicate
their preferences of brand origin when buying each category of products. We examine
the preferences of each type of product, ordered from 1 (‘‘most preferred’’) to 5 (‘‘least
preferred’’).
If each country had equal preference, the average would be 3. We have taken, using
the uniform distribution for preferences, the deviations below 2 and above 4 to indicate
significant changes from the average of 3. Figure 2 shows the average preferences for
different products.
For most products, developed countries (UK, USA, and Japan) are most preferred
except for tea (produced predominantly in India) where India is most preferred. China
is least preferred for almost all products and this is a reflection of consumers’
knowledge of the products from China and China’s limited export trade with India.
Further, consumers prefer brands (shoes and jeans) from the USA (developed country)
even though they are manufactured in China or India (emerging countries). This clearly
indicates a pattern of brand preference for India consumers, which is also revealed in
other research (e.g. Bandyopahyay, 2001).
We asked the consumers to rate on a seven-point semantic scale their feelings
regarding brand characteristics about brands originating from both the countries:
India and UK. The results of the inter correlations are shown in Tables II and III.
It shows from Tables II and III that the variables are inter-dependent for both
countries as these correlations are statistically significant. Further, the correlations are
significantly stronger for the UK than for India. We, therefore, conducted factor
analysis to identify the underlying relationships and these are discussed later.

Brand origin association

We carried out a chi-squared test of association between association of brand and the
CO for a group of 15 selected brands and a test of proportion of recognition for each
individual brand. The results are as expected: the major brands are correctly identified
with the country from which they originate, though major brands manufactured locally
are not identified to the same accuracy. Table IV below shows the results, and that the
chi-squared test is statistically significant at 99.99 per cent level of significance.
The association observed changes over time (Thakor and Kohli,1996) and this is
reflected in the results for Cadburys, Colgate, Nescafe, Ford, and Maruti which were
initially imported in India and now are manufactured locally. The analysis confirms our
Brand origin in
an emerging
market

291

Figure 2.
Consumer preference of
brand origin from
different product
categories
 18,4

292

Table II.
APJML

brands (N ¼ 145)
Correlation of brand
characteristics: India
Variable A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16

A01 1.00
A02
0.014 1.00
A03 0.00 0.19* 1.00
A04 0.02 0.02 0.13 1.00
A05 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.26** 1.00
A06 0.09 0.34** 0.30** 0.04 0.29** 1.00
A07 0.12 0.12
0.08 0.21** 0.09 0.04 1.00
A08 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.27** 0.28** 0.19* 0.17* 1.00
A09 0.03 0.17* 0.23** 0.08 0.20* 0.37** 0.24** 0.26** 1.00
A10 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.26** 0.15 0.14 0.25** 0.23** 0.33** 1.00
A11
0.12 0.28** 0.10 0.10
0.01 0.07 0.26** 0.07 0.13
0.05 1.00
A12
0.08 0.27** 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.15 0.19* 0.18* 0.10 0.35** 1.00
A13
0.04 0.30** 0.26** 0.24** 0.17* 0.39** 0.03 0.24** 0.38** 0.14 0.24** 0.44** 1.00
A14
0.16 0.30** 0.21* 0.15 0.15 0.41** 0.09 0.24** 0.38** 0.34** 0.14 0.24** 0.54** 1.00
A15 0.07 0.25** 0.06 0.12 0.01 0.15 0.29** 0.09 0.30** 0.25** 0.24** 0.23** 0.22** 0.17 1.00
A16 0.07 0.12 0.17* 0.13 0.09 0.21* 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.22** 0.08 0.02 0.25** 0.29** 0.19* 1.00

Notes: *Correlation significant at 0.05 level, **Correlation significant at 0.01 level; Key to the variables: A01: Expensiveness; A02: Reasonably priced;
A03: Workmanship; A04: Exclusiveness; A05: Technically advanced; A06: Reliability; A07: Luxury items; A08: Innovativeness; A09: Quality; A10: Type
of Design; A11: Mass produced; A12: Pride of ownership; A13: Appearance; A14: Performance; A15: Choice of models and sizes; A16: For a class
Variable A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16

A01 1.00
A02
0.22* 1.00
A03 0.21**
0.10 1.00
A04 0.40*
0.06 0.35* 1.00
A05 0.25*
0.09 0.32* 0.35* 1.00
A06 0.24*
0.03 0.39* 0.35* 0.48* 1.00
A07 0.53*
0.09
0.06 0.37* 0.28* 0.28* 1.00
A08 0.31* 0.05 0.22* 0.27* 0.39* 0.39* 0.38* 1.00
A09 0.23*
0.07 0.30* 0.35* 0.43* 0.49* 0.45* 0.52* 1.00
A10 0.51*
0.05 0.20** 0.31* 0.45* 0.42* 0.49* 0.51* 0.53* 1.00
A11
0.11 0.26* 0.04
0.05
0.16
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.19** 1.00
A12 0.17
0.07 0.15 0.26* 0.15 0.22* 0.29* 0.31* 0.44* 0.25* 0.21* 1.00
A13 0.29* 0.30* 0.37* 0.29* 0.32* 0.36* 0.30* 0.41* 0.52* 0.44*
0.10 0.57* 1.00
A14 0.21** 0.30* 0.37* 0.29* 0.32* 0.55* 0.28* 0.50* 0.64* 0.47*
0.04 0.49* 0.62* 1.00
A15 0.28* 0.25* 0.33* 0.12 0.18** 0.44* 0.37* 0.40* 0.37* 0.36*
0.03 0.30* 0.41* 0.40* 1.00
A16 0.40* 0.12 0.17** 0.16 0.18** 0.26* 0.13 0.20* 0.32* 0.38* 0.04 0.28* 0.44* 0.47* 0.28* 1.00

Notes: *Correlation significant at 0.01 level; **Correlation significant at 0.05 level; Key to the variables: A01: Expensiveness; A02: Reasonably priced;
A03: Workmanship; A04: Exclusiveness; A05: Technically advanced; A06: Reliability; A07: Luxury items; A08: Innovativeness; A09: Quality; A10: Type
of Design; A11: Mass produced; A12: Pride of ownership; A13: Appearance; A14: Performance; A15: Choice of models and sizes; A16: For a class

characteristics: UK
Correlation of brand

brands (N ¼ 145)
Table III.
293
an emerging
market
Brand origin in
APJML Country perceived Country not perceived
18,4 Brand correctly (%) correctly (%) Total

Cola 143 (99)* 2 (1) 145 (100)

Amul (Butter) 143 (99)* 1 (1) 144 (100)
Microsoft 142 (99)* 2 (1) 144 (100)
Sony 139 (98)* 3 (2) 142 (100)
294 Toyota 140 (97)* 4 (3) 144 (100)
Levi 127 (91)* 13 (9) 140 (100)
Maruti (Car) 125 (86)* 20 (14) 145 (100)
Crocin (Pharmaceutical) 115 (85)* 20 (15) 135 (100)
Ford 112 (82)* 25 (18) 137 (100)
Brook Bond (Tea) 92 (67)* 46 (33) 138 (100)
Arrow 85 (61)* 54 (39) 139 (100)
Nescafe 73 (56) 57 (44) 130 (100)
Siemens 70 (56) 54 (44) 124 (100)
Cadburys 60 (51) 58 (49) 118 (100)
Colgate 59 (42) 81 (58) 140 (100)
Table IV.
Identification of brand Notes: 2 ¼ 511.1; DF ¼ 14; p-value ¼ 0.000; *Test of proportion statistically significant at 0.01
origin level of significance

first hypothesis (H1) that consumers associate brands with countries where the brands
are originally developed rather than with the countries the products are produced. The
association becomes weaker overtime as the brands are produced locally.

Association between brand origin identification and social identity

We used the status of the respondent (executive and non-executive) as proxy for social
status and analysed consumer perceptions for four brands (Nescafe, Cadburys,
Siemens, and Colgate) for which there was no significant difference in correctly
identifying the brand origin. Therefore, H3 is not supported, and consumer social
status does not differ significantly when classifying the brand successfully. The
analysis of the brand perception with social status in our sample, contrary to the
expectation, does not show any significant association. Similarly, we did not find a
significant difference in consumer knowledge level between those who classified brand
origin successfully and those who classified them incorrectly. Therefore, H2 was not
supported. The negative result here may be due to the fact that the majority of the
respondents could recognize correctly the brand origin of the most of the brands
provided, and most of them had a good knowledge of these five countries.
Ahmed and d’Astous (2001) showed that evaluation and choice are not related to
income. In their study, both higher income groups and lower income groups (Canadian
consumers) show similar preference towards products made in newly industralised
East Asian countries. We analysed the respondents’ gross monthly income with the
outcome of the question: ‘‘given a choice of buying a comparable domestic or foreign
brand which would you normally choose?’’
Table V shows the association of income with brand preference.
The test of association (2 ¼ 5.55) between the household income and preference for
domestic or foreign brands is statistically significant at 10 per cent level of
significance. This confirms the hypothesis (H4) that brand evaluations are related to
consumer’s income and that higher income groups show preference towards foreign
brands. Further, the table shows that the preference of foreign brands increases with Brand origin in
the income, being 40 per cent at the lower level rising to over 60 per cent at the upper
end of the income. The outcome is in agreement with Ahmed and d’Astous’s (2001)
an emerging
original proposition but contradicts their outcome. The findings here provide an market
illustration of the difference of perceptions between consumers from developed
countries and developing countries regarding foreign products (Batra et al., 2000).

Brand origin and consumer preferences

295
Hui and Zhou (2003) have shown that when there is congruence between the brand
origin and country of manufacture, the latter has no significant effect on product beliefs
and global product attitude. This means that such brands have a high level of
recognition and acceptability. In addition, products from industrialised/developed
countries are preferred to the products from less-developed countries. To test H5
(Consumer preference of brand origin is associated to product category), the preference
of the respondents in relation choice of the country to high technology durable
products was used. The analysis shows a statistically significant association between
the brand and the choice of a developed country such as Japan and the USA.
The chi-squared test statistic with 12 degrees of freedom is 174.1 and the null
hypothesis that there is no association between the product/brand and the country is
rejected (Table VI). Therefore, the brands are associated with the country and that the
preference is for a developed country ( Japan and USA) is confirmed. This is indicated
by bold figures in the table.
It is known that respondents generally show a preference for internationally known
products (Peris et al., 1993), and that brands from developed country (UK) are perceived
to be superior and preferred to those from a less than developed country (India). We
used the average relative differences about the feelings respondents have on certain
characteristics of brands originating from India and UK. A 7-point semantic scale was
used to measure the relative positioning about these characteristics. Thus a brand

Income
Up to Rs. 15,001-30,000 Rs. 30,001-50,000 Rs. 50,001 + Total
Brand Rs. 15,000 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Table V.
Domestic 18 (60) 16 (55) 15 (43) 13 (34) 62 (47) Association between
Foreign 12 (40) 13 (45) 20 (57) 25 (66) 70 (53) income and brand origin
Total 30 (100) 29 (100) 35 (100) 38 (100) 132 (100) identification

Country Car PC Camera TV Total

India 51 (31) 25 (28) 13 (27) 23 (27) 112

UK 15 (7) 4 (6) 4 (6) 3 (6) 26
China 4 (7) 9 (7) 6 (7) 8 (7) 27
Japan 91 (116) 55 (104) 145 (103) 135 (103) 426
USA 54 (54) 99 (48) 22 (48) 22 (48) 197
Total 215 192 190 191 788 Table VI.
Country preference for
2
Notes: Figures in brackets are expected values;  ¼ 174.1; DF ¼ 12; p-value ¼ 0.000 products/brands
APJML which is inexpensive will be allocated a number towards 7 and towards 1 if was
18,4 considered to be expensive. Table VII and Figure 3 shows the outcome.
A paired t-test was conducted for these characteristics and the test on all the
characteristics shows that statistically significant differences exist (H6a to H6p). The
outcome is in conformity with the results found previously (Ahmed et al., 2002). It is
generally claimed (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995) that large samples will produce
statistically significant results. However, the magnitude of the t-test statistics and its
296 significance clearly shows that these results are not due to chance in spite of the large
sample size (n ¼ 124).

Factors determining brand images

We conducted a factor analysis with varimax rotation for the list of brand
characteristics for both India and the UK . Varimax rotation was used to facilitate the
interpretation of the factors. We used semantic differential scales on 16 attributes as
shown below.
Attributes used in factor analysis
A01 Expensive–Inexpensive.
A02 Reasonably priced–Unreasonably priced.
A03 Good workmanship–Poor workmanship.
A04 Exclusive–Common.
A05 Technically advanced–Technically backward.
A06 Reliable–Unreliable.
A07 Luxury items–Necessary items.
A08 Innovative–Imitative.
A09 High quality–Low quality.

Standard error of
Characteristics Mean (India–UK) mean difference t

Expensive 2.98* 0.146 20.54

Unreasonably priced 2.06* 0.182 11.33
Good workmanship 0.76* 0.173 4.39
Exclusive 2.27* 0.180 12.56
Technically advanced 1.44* 0.154 9.34
Reliable 1.02* 0.134 7.58
Luxury items 2.55* 0.160 15.88
Innovative 1.34* 0.179 7.47
High quality 1.31* 0.131 9.96
Modern design 1.29* 0.144 8.95
Mass produced 1.77* 0.197 8.98
Pride in ownership 1.05* 0.170 6.16
Good performance 1.04* 0.127 8.21
Table VII. Good appearance 1.11* 0.132 8.42
Pairwise differences of Unlimited choice 0.76* 0.182 4.16
perception of brands For upper class 2.04* 0.135 15.09
originating from India
and UK Notes: DF ¼ 123; *p value < 0.0001
 Brands from India Brand from UK Brand origin in
Inexpensive
Reasonably priced
Expensive
Unreasonably priced
an emerging
Poor workmanship Good workmanship market
Common Exclusive
Tech backward Tech advanced
unreliable Reliable
Necessary items Luxury items
Imitative Innovative
297
Poor quality High quality
Traditional design Modern design
Handmade Mass produced
No pride in ownership Pride of ownership
Poor appearance Good appearance
Poor performance Good performance Figure 3.
Limited choice Unlimited Choice Brand preference: a
For lower class For upper class perception of two
countries

A10 Modern design–Conservative design.

A11 Handmade–Mass produced.
A12 Pride of ownership–Not much pride of ownership.
A13 Good appearance–Poor appearance.
A14 Good performance–Poor performance.
A15 Wide choice of sizes and models–Limited choice of sizes and models.
A16 For upper class–For lower class.
To determine the number of factors, we followed the criterion of preserving those
factors whose eigen values were greater than one (Kaiser, 1960). The resultant outcome
was as follows: For India, five factors were extracted with total variation explained
being 56 per cent. The contribution of the factors, corresponding factor loadings and
the eigen values are shown in Table VIII below.
The first factor explains 13.0 per cent of the variation, and is represented by a series
of variables with their respective loadings: reliability (0.77), workmanship (0.62),
appearance (0.56), and performance (0.54). From these results, we call this first factor
‘‘competitiveness’’.
The second factor explains 12 per cent of the variance, and is represented by a series
of variables with the following factor loadings: production (0.77), pride of ownership
(0.66), and reasonably priced (0.55). The second factor we call ‘‘market suitability’’.
The third factor explains 11.9 per cent of variance and consists of the following
variables with loadings: design (0.73), class (0.58), and choice of sizes and models (0.55).
We call this factor ‘‘design’’.
The fourth factor explains 11.0 per cent of variance and consists of following
variables with loadings: innovativeness (0.69), technically advanced (0.67), and
exclusiveness (0.66). We call this factor ‘‘innovative’’.
The final factor explains 7.6 per cent and consists of expensiveness with loading
of (0.83).
APJML Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
18,4
Factor loadings
A01 0.051
0.131 0.058 0.111 0.832
A02 0.440 0.552 0.036
0.117
0.064
A03 0.619 0.005 0.020 0.022
0.010
A04
0.088 0.051 0.222 0.661
0.155
298 A05 0.254
0.090
0.058 0.672 0.160
A06 0.765 0.100 0.121 0.112 0.179
A07
0.272 0.430 0.490 0.206 0.296
A08 0.116 0.151 0.075 0.691 0.114
A09 0.403 0.173 0.456 0.181 0.130
A10 0.027
0.122 0.727 0.312
0.144
A11
0.008 0.772 0.009 0.013
0.050
A12 0.188 0.659
0.021 0.214
0.181
A13 0.558 0.257 0.211 0.303
0.283
A14 0.540 0.130 0.410 0.190
0.375
A15 0.047 0.456 0.553
0.069 0.190
A16 0.295
0.073 0.576
0.068
0.003
Table VIII. Percentage of variance explained 13.0 12.0 11.9 11.0 7.6
Rotated matrix and Cumulative percentage 13.0 25.0 36.9 47.9 55.5
factor loadings for India Eigenvalue 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.2

For the UK, five factors were extracted with the total variation explained being
56 per cent. The contribution of the factors with corresponding eigenvalues is shown in
Table IX below.
The first factor explains 10.0 per cent of the variation, and is represented by a series
of variables with their respective loadings: pride of ownership (0.78), appearance (0.73),
and performance (0.70). From these results, we shall call this first factor ‘‘personality’’.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Factor loadings
A01 0.115 0.083 0.825 0.190
0.167
A02
0.213 0.223
0.118
0.133 0.836
A03 0.230 0.121
0.056 0.796
0.062
A04 0.049 0.116 0.482 0.650 0.061
A05 0.011 0.568 0.178 0.460
0.093
A06 0.276 0.555 0.042 0.475 0.019
A07 0.216 0.281 0.755
0.013 0.029
A08 0.325 0.658 0.239 0.049 0.127
A09 0.487 0.599 0.156 0.191
0.029
A10 0.232 0.616 0.502 0.049
0.063
A11 0.281
0.436
0.033 0.130 0.699
A12 0.777 0.010 0.137 0.079 0.150
A13 0.732 0.241 0.179 0.200
0.104
A14 0.699 0.445 0.034 0.222
0.087
A15 0.493 0.368 0.071 0.120
0.055
A16 0.549 0.089 0.483
0.033
0.062
Table IX. Percentage of variance explained 10.0 16.0 13.2 10.1 7.1
Rotated matrix and Cumulative percentage 10.0 26.0 39.2 49.3 56.4
factor loadings for UK Eigenvalue 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.3
The second factor explains 16 per cent of the variance and is represented by a series of Brand origin in
variables with the following factor loadings: innovativeness (0.66), design (0.62),
quality (0.60), technically advanced (0.57), and reliability (0.56). The second factor we
an emerging
call ‘‘technical superiority’’. market
The third factor explains 13.2 per cent of variance and consists of the following
variables with loadings: expensiveness (0.83), luxury items (0.76), and design (0.50). We
call this factor ‘‘luxury’’.
The fourth factor explains 10.1 per cent of variance and consists of following
299
variables with loadings: workmanship (0.80) and exclusiveness (0.65). We call this
factor ‘‘social class’’.
The fifth factor explains 7.1 per cent and consists of reasonably priced with loading
of (0.84).
The brands in India are therefore perceived to be reliable, good performance, hand
made, and reasonably priced. The brands, however, are perceived to be of poor design,
common, imitative, technically backward, and meant for the lower class. In contrast,
the brands in UK are perceived to be technically advanced, good design, good quality,
good reliability for upper class to be proud of ownership with good appearance, good
performance, mass produced but unreasonably priced.

Discussion and conclusions

In this study, we found that brand origin is an identifiable feature for India, customers.
In other words, consumers associate brands with countries where the brands are
originally developed rather than with the countries in which the products are currently
produced. And the association becomes weaker over time as the brands are produced
locally. This could be further explained by Thakor and Lavack’s (2003) research, in
which they suggested a hierarchy of information where consumers are highly
influenced by knowing the country where the brand is owned and less influenced by
knowing where the product is made. In other words, they found that the perceived
country of corporate ownership counts. However, such strong association with brand
origin may be diluted given the time and effort a company has invested in localization,
as we have seen in this study to brands such as Cadbury and Colgate.
The results, therefore, show that in an era of increasing globalization, brand origin
may be a useful replacement for the more general concept of CO given that the CO for
one single product becomes most likely plural i.e. multi-nation orientated. Brand origin
serves as a simplification of the increasingly complicated CO concept. Our research
also shows that the brand origin is dynamic. This is as expected, and is manifested in
our conceptual framework. To put it simply, country of manufacture of a product is a
fact that is determined by where the product is produced. Brand origin, on the other
hand is the perception of consumers regarding where the brand/product comes from. It
is, therefore, subject to change. Our results demonstrated that even the most salient
brands can change their brand origin wittingly or unwittingly. For example, in our
survey a significant proportion of respondents regarded Cadburys and Colgate as local
brands. That is probably because these two brands were introduced to India years ago,
and their production has become localised for a long time. Most important of all, many
new variants of these two brands have been developed to cater for the needs of local
consumers and therefore, they have lost their ‘‘foreignness’’ of appeal.
We also found that brand evaluations are related to consumer’s income, and as such
higher income groups show preference towards foreign brands. At a first glance, the
findings seem to contradict results from Ahmed and d’Astous (2001) in which they
APJML found that the lower the income, the more favorable were consumers towards products
18,4 made in China and in the ASEAN countries. Considering that their respondent base is
from Canada, a developed country, and ours is from India a developing country, the
difference is understandable. Dhillon (2005) described the admiration of economically
developed countries lifestyle by higher income young executives in India. Batra et al.
(2000) concluded that as a consumer’s admiration of an economically developed
300 country’s lifestyle increases, the effect of perceived non-localness of the brand on brand
attitude becomes more positive. Therefore, our results extend Bastra et al.’s (2000)
results by providing a direct linkage between income and brand origin effect. The
results can also indicate a way to extend the framework of Thakor and Lavack (2003).
That is, apart from exploration of the direct linkage between perceived brand origin
and its consequences, it is worthwhile to explore the moderating effects of
demographic factors such as income and social status.
Similar to Batra et al. (2000), we found that brands from a developed country (UK)
are perceived to be superior and preferred to those from a less than developed country
(India). In particular, we found that just over than half of the sample preferred foreign
brands to comparable local brands and brands in India are perceived to be reliable,
good performance, hand made, and reasonably priced but to be of poor design,
imitative, technically backward, and meant for the lower classes. In contrast, the
brands in UK are perceived to be technically advanced, good design, good quality, good
reliability for the upper classes to be proud of ownership but mass produced, and
unreasonably priced. This is consistent with Bandypadyay (2001). But our results
provide a more detailed trajectory description.
To summarise, brand origin tends to be a valid concept from what we found in this
survey. Respondents in the survey align well with the concept. It is found that
consumers generally tend to link a particular country with a brand irrespective of
where the brand/product is made. We further found two clearly different trajectories of
consumer perception towards brands originating in the UK and those from
India. Interestingly, many respondents take localized UK brands as brands originating
in India. This implies that global companies can take advantage of such confusion
and use it as important purchasing cue. Our research, therefore, provides a useful
guidance for companies competing in India market to find a suitable image of
presentation.
However, our research is not without limitations. First of all, our sample is based on
only one country, i.e. India. It would be useful if a multi-country comparison is made
given various regional differences, religion differences, and cultural differences within
the developing country context. An interesting research direction for the future is
therefore, to consider these extrinsic factors such as cultural differences and their
moderating effect on brand origin association and its consequences as a purchasing
cue. Secondly, the concept of brand origin needs to be developed further. Currently, we
used it in a conventional sense, comparable to the concept of CO. This is necessary at
the initial development stage of a concept. But brand origin is more than simply an
association of a brand to a place or a region. Indeed, the concept could be multiple-
dimensional, given the difference in brand ownership, development, production,
promotion, etc. Further development of the construct therefore remains an important
research topic for the future, especially when the dynamic nature of the construct is
considered. Finally, the brand origin concept should be considered in a wider
framework such as brand image, brand equity, and corporate identity.
References Brand origin in
Ahmed, S. and d’Astous, A. (2001), ‘‘Canadian consumers’ perceptions of products made in newly an emerging
industrializing East Asian countries’’, International Journal of Commerce and
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 54-81. market
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Ling, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, A.K. (2002), ‘‘Country-of-origin and
brand effects on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines’’, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 279-302. 301
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2001), ‘‘Competitiveness of foreign products as perceived by consumers in
the emerging Indian market’’, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D., Steenkamp, J. and Ramachander, S. (2000), ‘‘Effects of brand
local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries’’, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-95.
Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982), ‘‘Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations’’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-99.
Burgess, S. (1999), ‘‘Social identity in an emerging consumer market: how do you do the wash
may say a lot about who you think you are’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26,
pp. 170-75.
Business Week (2003), ‘‘The rise of India’’, Business week, 8 December.
Dhillon, A. (2005), ‘‘India’s new rich go on spending spree’’, The Sunday Times, 3 April.
Dichter, E. (1962), ‘‘The world customer’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 113-22.
Geen, R. (1991), ‘‘Social motivation’’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 377-99.
Ger, G., Askegaard, S. and Christensen, A. (1999), ‘‘Experiential nature of product-place images:
image as a narrative’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 165-9.
Han, C.M. (1989), ‘‘Country image: halo or summary construct’’, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. XXVI, May, pp. 222-9.
Hogg, M. (1992), The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, NY.
Hui, M.K. and Zhou, L. (2003), ‘‘Country-of-manufacture effects for known brands’’, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1/2, pp. 133-53.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960), ‘‘The application of electronic computer to factor analysis’’, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, pp. 141-51.
Lim, K. and O’Cass, A. (2001), ‘‘Consumer brand classifications: an assessment of culture-of-
origin versus country-of-origin’’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 120-36.
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (2002), ‘‘Country equity and country branding: problems and
prospects’’, Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4-5, pp. 294-314.
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), ‘‘A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects’’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Fourth Quarter, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900.
Peris, S.M., Newman, K., Bigne, E. and Chansarkar, B. (1993), ‘‘Aspects of Anglo-Spanish
perceptions and product preferences arising from ‘Country of Origin’ image’’, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 12, pp. 131-42.
Pittman, T.S. and Heller, J.F. (1987), ‘‘Social motivation’’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 38,
pp. 461-89.
Population Clock (2005), available at: www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/pop_clock.asp
(accessed on 30 March 2005).
APJML Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J. and Solomon, S. (1997), ‘‘Why do we need what we need? A terror
management perspective on the roots of human social motivation’’, Psychological Inquiry,
18,4 Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Schooler, R.D. (1965), ‘‘Product bias in the central american common market’’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 4, pp. 394-97.
Thakor, M.V. and Kohli, C.S. (1996), ‘‘Brand origin: conceptualization and review’’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 27-42.
302 Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, A. (2003), ‘‘Effect of perceived brand origin associations on consumer
perceptions of quality’’, Journal of product and Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 394-407.
Verlegh, P.W. and Steenkamp, J. (1999), ‘‘A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research’’, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 521-46.

About the authors

Zhongqi Jin is a Senior Lecturer at Middlesex University Business School, London, UK. He holds
a PhD from School of management, University of Bath. He teaches in the field of marketing and
innovation. His research interests are in the fields of innovation management, product
development, and consumer behaviour. Contact details: Dr Zhongqi Jin, Middlesex University
Business School, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BT. Zhongqi Jin is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: z.jin@mdx.au.uk
Bal Chansarkar is a Visiting Professor in Statistics, Middlesex University Business School.
He is currently also a senior visiting Professor at NMIMS, a deemed university in Mumbai, India.
He is the author of 10 books on national planning and statistics. He is the author/co-author of
over thirty journal articles and conference papers on marketing in consumer patterns of buyer
behaviour, priority of executive development and profiling students in Higher Education. Bal’s
recent consultancy projects include marketing research and strategy development work for a
high-profile Japanese plaza, a large aerospace maintenance company, and a national
pharmaceutical company. Contact details: Dr Bal Chansarkar, Middlesex University Business
School, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BT.
N.M. Kondap is a Post Graduate Engineer with Masters in Marketing Management. He has
worked with national and multinational companies. He is a Rotary Chair Professor of Non-Profit
Organization and is on the Advisory Committee of Ministry of Power, Government of India, is a
member of Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industries and Indian Society for Training and
Development (ISTD). He has received awards including Best Innovation in Teaching Award of
Association of Indian Management Schools (AIMS), 2000, Best Teacher of Management by
Bombay Management Association, 2000 and Best Member Award of ISTD (2001-2002).
Dr Kondap is a consultant and a trainer and the Vice-Chancellor of NMIMS Deemed University.
Contact details: N.M. Kondap, Narsee Manjee Institute of Management and Higher Studies,
Deemed University, India.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints