複合品牌策略、核心資源、商圈生態類型對品牌權益影響之研究-以大台北商圈為實證

The Empirical Study on Relationship Among Complex Brand Strategy、Core Resources、Trade Area Ecology and Brand Equity- For the Example of Taipei Trade Area

李盈瑩(Ying-Ying Lee)

指導教授 ： 呂鴻德

中原大學/商學院/企業管理研究所/碩士(2001年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200100090

摘要

論文摘要
本研究旨在探討複合品牌策略類型與品牌權益之關係。隨著經濟發展的快速提升，經營方式改變，消費型態之變遷，整體之商業經營已從賣方之市場轉換成買方之市場。尤其在今日產品泛濫的時代，消費者面對眾多可選擇的品牌，往往會因為某些誘因而產生轉換品牌的行為。因此，產業紛紛採用多品牌策略，以掌握消費者、降低推出新產品的成本及擴大整體市場佔有率。
本研究根據過去國內外學者之研究與實務現象，發展出四種複合品牌策略類型，即「品牌單一型」、「品牌共生型」、「品牌延伸型」及「品牌傘型」。本研究亦導入影響品牌權益的兩個重要因素即：「核心資源類型」與「商圈生態類型」，為本研究之中介變數，以分析其對於複合品牌策略類型與品牌權益之間的關係。
本研究以台北商圈內複合經營廠商為研究對象，共郵寄700封問卷，回收有效問卷166份，回卷資料經因素分析、集群分析、區別分析、單因子與雙因子變異數分析等統計方法後，歸納出數點重要實證結論如下：
1.研究結果顯示不同的複合品牌策略類型與品牌權益之間具有顯著差異，其中以「品牌延伸型」對品牌權益提升效果最高，「品牌單一型」為最低。
2.研究發現依據文獻回顧所建構出之二十四項衡量複合廠商之核心資源能力指標，可將複合廠商區分為「資產能力型」、「組織能力型」與「競爭能力型」，深入分析發現，若屬於組織能力型者，採行品牌單一型及品牌延伸型策略有較佳之品牌權益，而資產能力型與競爭能力型則以採品牌傘策略將有助於提高品牌權益。
3.由組織生態理論觀點，將其應用在複合商店之業態關係的分析，依據商店間策略（偏好／互斥）與產業間策略（同業／異業）兩個構面，配適而成「同業相鄰偏好」、「同業相鄰互斥」、「異業相鄰偏好」、「異業相鄰互斥」等四種策略配合型態。經統計分析與實務觀察後，整體而言，商圈生態類型與品牌權益存在顯著性影響關係。另外，在不同複合品牌策略與商圈生態之配合交互作用方面，僅對品牌聯想及目標達成度部份產生交互效果。

關鍵字

複合品牌策略 ； 核心資源 ； 商圈生態 ； 品牌權益

並列摘要

ABSTRACT
The major subject of this thesis is focused on the relationship between complex brand strategy and brand equity. Due to speed of economic development, change of business model, and paradigm shift of buying behavior, the business will change from consumer market to seller market. More and more business are using complex brand strategy in order to attract consumers 、escalate costs and to expand the market share.
Base on the literature review and empirical observation, the complex brand strategies are divided into four types - 「single－brand」、「co－brand」、「brand－extension」and 「umbrella－brand」. In addition, this empirical study also considers two immediate varieties that is core resources and trade area ecology. Therefore, this study is discussed the relationship between the types of complex brand strategies and brand equity, and the causes of the types of core resources and trade are ecology influence above.
The corporate that had operated combination stores were the frame of sampling. Seven hundred companies were requested to answer the questionnaires by mail and the effective respondents were 166 sets. After analyzing those data, the conclusions are summarized as followings:
1. This study implied that these four complex brand strategies were significant to brand equity, the type of brand extension strategy had the highest brand equity, but the type of single brand strategy was the lowest.
2. With 24 variables generated from the literature review to explore the indicator of combination core resources, this study classified core resources into three groups: assets capability、organizational capability and competence capability. Moreover, the advanced analysis finds that thecorporate in organizational capability type adopt single brand or brand extension strategy could have better brand equity; and the firm in asset and organizational capability type adopt umbrella brand could have better brand equity.
3. This paper applies the Organizational Ecology theory to analyze the interrelationship of combination store are divided into four types-「co-industry mutualism」、「co-industry exclusion」、「non-industry mutualism」and 「non-industry exclusion」.Through statistic analysis and observing the practice,generally speaking, this study found that the relationship between trade area ecology and brand equity except brand association is relative in some ways. Moreover, this study also found that some brand equity dimension has significantly difference like the brand association and object achievement which the interaction between the complex brand strategy and trade area ecology.

並列關鍵字

core resources ； complex brand strategy ； trade area ecology ； bradn equity

參考文獻

46. 黎堅(民78)，自創品牌檢討，台灣經濟研究月刊，12(2)，19-25頁。

16. 孫藹彬(民87)，台灣資訊軟體產業發展之生態演進分析，中央大學資訊管理學系未出版博士論文。

26. 陳振燧、張允文(民90)，品牌聯想策略對品牌權益影響之研究，管理學報，18:1，75-98頁。

44. 鄭仁偉、杜啟華、胡惠玟(民89)，品牌資產創造影響因素之研究－我國資訊電腦自有品牌廠商實證分析，企業管理學報，47，81-106頁。

1. Aaker, D. A.（1992）, The Value of Brand Equity, Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4): 27-32.