Author :
Abstract
Marka, işletmelerin ürünlerini diğer işletmelerin ürünlerinden ayıran işaretlerdir. Bu amaca hizmet eden isim, logo, simge, tasarım ve bütün bunların bileşkesi olan somut ve soyut bir kavramdır. Ulusal ve uluslararası ölçekte kendini ispatlamış pek çok marka vardır. Tüketicilerin bu markaları tercih etmesi ise işletmeler için hayati önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, potansiyel bir tüketici grubu olan üniversite öğrencilerinin marka tercihinde demografik özelliklerinin algıları üzerindeki etkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda araştırma, Selçuk üniversitesinde öğrenimlerini sürdüren öğrenciler üzerinde yürütülmüştür. 381 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler Google anket üzerinden toplanmıştır. 5’ li Likert Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Ölçek olarak Mittal ve Kamakura (2001)’ den yararlanılmıştır. Demografik özellikler olarak cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim ve gelir durumu ele alınmıştır. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler yapılmıştır. Elde edilen araştırma bulgularına göre, marka tercihinde tüketicilerin demografik özelliklerinin tüketici algısı üzerinde etkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
Keywords
Abstract
Brands are the signs that distinguish the products of enterprises from the products of other enterprises. It is a concrete and abstract concept that serves this purpose as a combination of name, logo, icon, design and all of these. There are many brands that have proven themselves on a national and international scale. It is vital for businesses that consumers prefer these brands. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of demographic characteristics on the perceptions of university students, who are a potential consumer group, in brand preference. For this purpose, the research was carried out on students who continue their education at Selçuk University. It was held with 381 participants. The data were collected through a Google survey. A 5-point Likert scale was used. Mittal and Kamakura (2001) were used as a scale. Gender, age, education and income status were considered as demographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were made.According to the research findings, it has been determined that the demographic characteristics of consumers in brand preference are effective on consumer perception.
Keywords
- 1. Asmafiliz, E., Gökerik, M. ve Ergin, G. (2012). Reklamın Marka Değerine ve Tüketicinin Satın Alma Davranışlarına Olan Etkileri, 11. Ulusal İşletmecilik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi, 10-12 Mayıs 2012.
- 2. Beneke, J., Flynn, R., Greig, T. ve Mukaiwa, M. (2013). The influence of perceived product quality, relative price and risk on customer value and willingness to buy: A study of private label merchandise. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(3), 218-228.
- 3. Buda, R., Kahushik, S. ve Sayed E.E. (2006). “Employee And Organizational Perspectives of Service Quality: A Cross-Cultural Study in Kuwait, United States and Saudi Arabia,” International Journal of Management, 23(1), 430–435.
- 4. Burgess, B. (2004). “A Comparison of TV home Shosers Based on Risk Perception,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 7(3), 259-271.
- 5. Cemalcılar, İ. (1999). Pazarlama, Tıpkı Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayımcılık.
- 6. Chen, T.Y., Pao-Long, C. ve Hong-Sheng C. (2005). "Price, Brand Cues, and Banking Customer Value," The International Journal of Banking Marketing, 23(2/3), 273-291.
- 7. Chen, J., Eddie J.M. Huri ve Zhongming W. (2011). “Post-purchase Experience in the Real Estate Market,”: The Case of China,” Housing Studies, 26(3), 385-402.
- 8. Chatterjee, S. C. ve Chaudhuri, A. (2005). “Are Trusted Brands Important.”Marketing Management Journal, 15(1), 1-16.
- 9. Cutter S. L., J. Tiefenbacher ve W. D. Solecki (1992). “En-Gendered Fears: Femininity and Technological Risk Perception,” Ind. Crisis Quart, 6, 5-22.
- 10. Çağlar, İ. ve Kılıç, S. (2005). Pazarlama, 1. Baskı, Ankara: Nobel Baskı Baskıevi.
- 11. Deniz, M. H. (2011). Markalı Ürün Tercihlerinin Satın Alma Davranışları Üzerindeki Etkisi, Journal of Social Policy Conferences, 61(2).
- 12. Diallo, M. F. (2012). Effects of store image and store brand price-image on store brand purchase intention: Application to an emerging market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(3), 360– 367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.03.010
- 13. Durmaz, Y., Oruç, R. B. ve Kurtlar, M. (2011). Kişisel Faktörlerin Tüketici Satın Alma Davranışlarına Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 2(1).
- 14. Fischer, G. W., M. G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, I. Nair ve L. B. Lave (1991). “What Risks are People Concerned About?,” Risk Analysis, 11, 303-314.
- 15. Floyd, Myron F. ve Lori Pennington-Gray (2004). “Profiling Risk Perceptions of Tourist,” Annals of tourism Research, 31(4), 1051-1054.
- 16. Fuller, J., Matzler, K. ve Hoppe, M. (2008). “Brand Community Members as a Source of Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608- 619.
- 17. Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review 20, 379-403.
- 18. Jakobsen, L. ve Ch. Karlsson (1996). Risk Och Hot I den Svenska Vardagen: Allt Fran Tjernobyl Till Skuren Sas, (Editör: A. Enander ve L. Jakobsen), Civil Beredskap, Stocholm.
- 19. Kotler, P. (2011). 10 Ölümcül Pazarlama Günahı, Banu Adıyaman (çev.), 4. Baskı, İstanbul: MediaCat Yayınları.
- 20. Lee, J.H., Hyun-Duck K., Yong J. K. ve Michael S. (2011). “The Influence of Service Quality on Satisfaction and Intention: a Gender Segmentation Strategy,” Sport Management Review, 14, 54-63.
- 21. Luk, S. T. ve Yip, L. S. (2008). “The Moderator Effect of Monetary Sales Promotion on the Relationship between Brand Trust and Purchase Behaviour.” Journal of Brand Management, 15(6), 452-464.
- 22. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Tüketici Davranış Modelleri, Aile ve Tüketici Hizmetleri, 241TP0060, Ankara, 2012.
- 23. Mittal, V. ve Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-142.
- 24. Oluç, M. (2006). Temel Pazarlama Kavramları, 1. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
- 25. Özsomer, A. (2012). The Interplay Between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local Iconness. Journal of International Marketing, 72-95.
- 26. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. ve Camerer, C. (1998). “Not so Different after All: A Cross- Discipline View of Trust.”Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 393-404.
- 27. Song, Y., Hur, W., ve Kim, M. (2012). Brand trust and affect in the luxury brand-customer relationship. Social Behavior And Personality, 40(2), 331-338.
- 28. Spathis, C., Eugenia, P. ve Niki G. (2004). "Managing Service Quality in Banks: Customers’ Gender Effects," Managing Service Quality, 14(1) 90-102.
- 29. Spence, H. E., James, F. E. ve Roger, D. B. (1970). “Perceived Risk in Mail-Order and Retail Store Buying,” Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 364-369.
- 30. Srinivasan, N. ve Brain, T. R. (1991). ”An Emprical Test of a Model of External Search for Automobiles,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 233-242.
- 31. Steenkamp, J. B., Batra, R., ve Alden, D. L. (2003). How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value. Journal of Business Studies, 1(34), 53-65.
- 32. Tauber, E. (1972). Why Do People Shop. Journal of Marketing 36(4), 46-59.
- 33. Tenekecioğlu, B. (2009). Pazarlama Yönetimi, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Web-Ofset Tesisleri.
- 34. Yousaf U., Zulfiqar R., Aslam M., ve Altaf, M. (2012). Studying brand loyalty in the cosmetics industry. LogForum, 8(4), 327-337.
- 35. inkhan, G. M. ve Karande, (1991). “Cultural and Gender Differences in Risk Taking Behaviour Among American and Spanish Decision Makers,” Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 741-724.
- 36. Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., ve Verlegh, P. (2014). Global vs local brands: How home country bias and price differences impact brand evaluations. International Marketing Review, 102-128.
- 37. Wood, S. L. ve Lynch, J.G. (2002). Prior Knowledge and Complacency in New Product Learning, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 416-426.
