Resolving the impasse regarding
research on the origins of
products and brands
Saeed Samiee
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the apparent controversy surrounding the
relevance of country of origin (CO) and brand origin (BO) lines of research, with particular reference to
an article authored by Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic (MWZ) whose research findings assert
that CO matters, irrespective of whether customers can actually recall origins of brands.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the extant literature from academic and business
publications, the paper offers evidence regarding the relative unimportance of origin-related attributes
in most purchasing situations. In this context, the paper examines the atheoretic nature of CO research
combined with a general lack of realistic managerial relevance, consumers’ impoverished CO and BO
knowledge base, and the challenges of using CO as a positioning tool in marketing strategy. Finally,
the paper examines some critical research issues regarding MWZ’s contribution.
Findings – Country of origin research is not as relevant in customer choice process as some scholars
believe and is generally void of meaningful managerial guidelines.
Originality/value – This is a commentary about an International Marketing Review article.
Keywords Country of origin, Brand origin, International marketing research, Consumer behaviour,
Marketing strategy
Paper type General review
Two complementary schools of thought for assessing the influence of foreignness of
products and brands upon the customer choice behavior and firms’ corresponding
marketing practices have evolved. Known as country of origin (CO) and brand origin
(BO) knowledge they take somewhat different approaches in examining the issue. CO
has been the traditional way of examining the influences of a product’s origin in which
respondents are artificially alerted to alternative production (or assembly) locations of
a product following which respondents’ perceptions of the product following exposure
to location cues are assessed. The vast majority of methodological variations used in
CO research expose subjects to some form of a CO cue.
Revelations regarding limited interest and knowledge of consumers regarding
origins of products and brands they purchase questions the appropriateness of using
traditional CO type research designs (Bulik, 2007; Hugstad and Durr, 1986; Samiee
et al., 2005; Weisman and Connelly, 2007). Additionally, given the global production of
an increasing number of brands, contract manufacturing (e.g. IBM) and international
sourcing (e.g. Sony), strategic alliances involving parts and components (e.g. Fiat,
Volkswagen), as well as the emergence of design only firms that market branded
products, but lack any manufacturing facilities (e.g. AMD, Broadcom, Rambus), CO
has essentially lost its validity as an important issue with a managerial relevance
(Samiee, 1994; Bulik, 2007; Sapsford and Shirouzu, 2006; Usunier, 2006). These
conditions have had profound effects in shifting conditions previously associated with
the CO, to the brand level (Lim and O’Cass, 2001; Thakor and Kohli, 1996; Lee and
Ganesh, 1999). In contrast to CO, BO which is defined as the headquarters location of
the firm initiating a brand also offers the advantage of greater stability over longer
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
International Marketing Review
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2011
pp. 473-485
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/02651331111167598
473
Resolving the
impasse