طراحی مدل سردرگمی مشتریان در انتخاب تجهیزات ورزشی پیرو

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت بازاریابی در ورزش، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران

2 دانشیار مدیریت ورزشی، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر، طراحی مدل سردرگمی مشتریان در انتخاب تجهیزات ورزشی پیرو بود. این پژوهش توصیفی، کاربردی و مبتنی بر مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری اجرا شد. جامعۀ آماری پژوهش را کلیۀ بازدیدکنندگان پانزدهمین نمایشگاه بین‌المللی ورزش و تجهیزات ورزشی شهر تهران تشکیل می‌دادند و حجم نمونه‌ها با روش نمونه‌گیری معادلات ساختاری تعیین شد و مطابق آن 98 پرسشنامه از نمونه‌های در دسترس جمع‌آوری شد. پرسشنامة پژوهش از طریق تکنیک دلفی با اعمال نظر شش نفر از متخصصان بازاریابی ورزشی کشور تهیه شد و روایی صوری و محتوایی آن نیز توسط چند تن از استادان بازاریابی ورزشی تأیید شد. روایی سازه از طریق روایی همگرا برای تمامی عوامل از 5/0 بیشتر گزارش شد و پایایی پرسشنامه از طریق آلفای کرونباخ و پایایی ترکیبی سنجیده شد که ضرایب هر دو آزمون برای تمامی عوامل بیشتر از 7/0 به‌دست آمد. آزمون فرضیات و برازش مدل به‌وسیلۀ نرم‌افزار SMARTPLS صورت گرفت. یافته‌ها حاکی از معناداری اثر تقلید از نام و ظاهر بر تقلید هویت و تصویر برندهای پیشرو بود و اثر تقلید از ظاهر، هویت و تصویر برند پیشرو بر سردرگمی مشتریان معنادار گزارش شد. البته اثر تقلید از نام بر سردرگمی مشتریان معنادار گزارش نشد. همچنین سردرگمی مشتریان، تقلید هویت و تصویر برند پیشرو اثر معناداری بر انتخاب برند پیرو داشتند. ازاین‌رو می‌توان گفت برندهای پیرو با هدف ایجاد سردرگمی در مشتریان از برندهای پیشرو تقلید می‌کنند تا با شباهت‌های موجود مشتریان را به سمت انتخاب برندهای پیرو به‌جای برندهای پیشرو سوق دهند. این ترفند بازاریابی می‌تواند تولید ملی را جایگزین کالاهای خارجی کند.   

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing a Customer Confusion Model over Selecting Follower Sport Equipment

نویسندگان [English]

  • hasan gholami ghajari 1
  • Masoumeh Kalateh Seifari 2
1 M.S. Graduated Marketing management in Sport, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2 Assistant professor of sport management, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
چکیده [English]

 
The aim of the present study was to design a customer confusion model over selecting follower sport equipment. This study was descriptive, applied and based on structural equation modeling. The statistical population consisted of all visitors of the 15th International Sport and Sport Equipment Exhibition in Tehran. The size of the sample was determined by structural equation sampling and 98 questionnaires were collected from available samples. The research questionnaire was developed by Delphi technique with the employment of the viewpoints of 6 sport marketing professors of Iran, and its face and content validities were confirmed by several sport marketing professors. Construct validity was reported higher than 0.5 for all factors by convergent validity and the reliability of the questionnaire was measured by Cronbach's alpha and combined reliability and the coefficients of both tests for all factors were greater than 0.7. The hypotheses testing and fitting model were performed by SMARTPLS software. The findings showed a significant effect of imitation of name and appearance on imitating the identity and image of leading brands, and the effect of imitation of the appearance, identity and image of the leading brand on customer confusion was reported as significant. The effect of imitation of the name on customer confusion was not reported as significant. Also, customer confusion, identity imitation and leading brand image had a significant effect on the selection of the follower brand. Hence, it can be said that follower brands mimic leading brands with the aim of creating confusion among customers in order to push them into selecting follower brands instead of leading brands. This marketing trick can replace national products with foreign goods.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Brand selection
  • customer confusion
  • follower brand
  • leading brand
  • Sport Equipment
1. Sharifian E, Yousefi MH, Ghahraman Tabrizi K. Comparison Internal-sector Barriers for competition with foreign products in Iran sports industry. Scientific Journal Management System. 2016;5(17):73-82. (In Persian).
2. Kashef M, Ahadi B, Majidi C. The Factors Related to National Production and Iranian Labor and Capital Support in Sport. Journal of Sport Management. 2015;7(3):351-366. (In Persian).
3. D’Astous A, Gargouri E. Consumer evaluations of brand imitations. European Journal of Marketing. 2001;35(1/2):153-167.
4. Petty RD. Recognizing the rights of consumers as brand co-owners. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2008;17(6):414-415.
5. Faghih Nasiri B. A Comparison of Effectiveness of Brand Identity on Purchasing Intention between Original Brands & Copycat [MSc]. University of Mazandaran; 2015. (In Persian).
6. Van Horen F, Pieters R. Preference reversal for copycat brands: Uncertainty makes imitation feel good. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2013;37:54-64.
7. Pieters R. Looking more or less alike: Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands. Journal of Business Research. 2010;63(11):1121-1128.
8. Van Horen F, Pieters R. Consumer evaluation of copycat brands: The effect of imitation type. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2012;29(3):246-255.
9. Mahmoudi Maymand M. Copycat and Leader Brands: Study of Consumer’s Mindset in Evaluating and Selecting. Iranian Rubber Magazine. 2014;18(71):48-55. (In Persian).
10. Sprotles GB, Kendall EL. A methodology for profiling consumers' decision‐making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 1986;20(2):267-279.
11. Kapferer JN. Brand confusion: empirical study of a legal concept. Psychology & Marketing. 1995;12(6):551-568.
12. Aribarg A, Arora N, Henderson T, Kim Y. Private label imitation of a national brand: Implications for consumer choice and law. Journal of Marketing Research. 2014;51(6):657-675.
13. Takeyasu K, Higuchi Y. Brand selection and its matrix structure-expansion to the second order lag. International Journal of Systematic Innovation. 2014;2(4):20-25.
14. Van Horen F, Pieters R. Out-of-Category Brand Imitation: Product Categorization Determines Copycat Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research. 2017;44(4):816-832.
15. Van Horen F, Pieters R. When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: The impact of comparative evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research. 2012;49(1):83-91.
16. Ebrahimi SB, Ketabian H, Rahimi H. Identification of the effective criteria on choosing imitation brand for consumables. Iranian Business Management. 2015;7(2):273-294. (In Persian).
17. Le Roux A, Bobrie F, Thébault M. A typology of brand counterfeiting and imitation based on a semiotic approach. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(1):349-356.
18. Burt JS, McFarlane KA, Kelly SJ, Humphreys MS, Weatherall K, Burrell RG. Brand name confusion: Subjective and objective measures of orthographic similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2017;23(3):320-335.
19. Kinuthia LN, Keren G, Burugu M, Muthomi H, Mwihaki M. Factors influencing brand loyalty in sportswear among Kenyan university students: the case of swimmers. differences. 2012;1(4):223-231.
20. Pillai P, Soni S, Naude M. Selected factors as determinants in the purchase choice of sporting goods. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2015;13(3):216-223.
21. Xu P, Liu S. Imitation brand [MSc]. Högskolan i Halmstad/Sektionen för Ekonomi och Teknik (SET); 2009.
22. Steenkamp J-BE, Geyskens I. Manufacturer and retailer strategies to impact store brand share: Global integration, local adaptation, and worldwide learning. Marketing Science. 2013;33(1):6-26.
23. Shiu JY. Investigating consumer confusion in the retailing context: The causes and outcomes. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2017;28(7-8):746-764.
24. Satomura T, Wedel M, Pieters R. Copy alert: A method and metric to detect visual copycat brands. Journal of Marketing Research. 2014;51(1):1-13.
25. Humphreys MS, McFarlane KA, Burt JS, Kelly SJ, Weatherall KG, Burrell RG. How important is the name in predicting false recognition for lookalike brands? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2017;23(3):381-395.
26. Gholami Ghajari H, Kalateh Seifari M, Shirkhodaei M. Identifying the Ways to Successful Imitation Strategy in Sport Entrepreneurship Companies (Case Study: Tanin Peik Sabalan Company, BETA Brand). New Trends in Sport Management. 2018;5(19):37-51. (In Persian).
27. Keller KL. Strategic brand management. Bathaii A. 1nd ed. Tehran, PA: Siteh; 2011. (In Persian).
28. Unnsteinsson E. Confusion is corruptive belief in false identity. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2016;46(2):204-227.
29. Srivastava RK. Understanding brand identity confusion. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 2011;29(4):340-352.
30. Gholami Ghajari H. Designing the model of affecting factors on intention to buy orginal and imitator brand soccer balls [MSc]. University of Mazandaran; 2017. (In Persian).
31. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5nd ed. Boston, PA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education; 2007.
32. Pashaeizad H. A Glance to Delphi Method. Light courier. 2008;6(2):63-79. (In Persian).
33. Schmidt RC. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. decision Sciences. 1997;28(3):763-774.
34. Haenlein M, Kaplan AM. A beginner's guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding statistics. 2004;3(4):283-297.
35. Nevitt J, Hancock GR. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling. 2001;8(3):353-377.
36. Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research. 1998;295(2):295-336.
37. Wetzels M, Odekerken-Schröder G, Van Oppen C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly. 2009;33(1):177-195.