臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於越來越多的廠商已意識到，符號消費對資訊產品深具意義且有競爭性的，資訊產品逐漸與流行時尚做結合，商品設計也盡量滿足小眾市場的品味要求。之前消費者購買資訊產品時在意的是它的規格，但今日消費者卻傾向以主觀的個人意識選擇與自己個性相符的資訊商品，資訊商品既是生活的工具，也是身份地位乃至於自我表白的象徵。
本研究透過以上觀點，以問卷的方式施測消費者對台灣部分資訊品牌的看法。研究結果顯示，資訊品牌的未提示知名與已提示知名的座標點，大致座落在一條直線上。以這條直線為基準，IBM、SONY未提示知名偏高，顯示消費者再選購資訊產品時，容易將其放入喚引組合中；而BenQ、Panasonic、ASUS、samsung的未提示知名偏低，故應該以品牌改善策略加強消費者對該品牌熟悉度。其次，品牌忠誠分析發現，資訊品牌的忠誠度約20-35%，與一般性消費用品相比顯然偏低。研究者推測，這是由於產品單價高，且非經常性購買，因此決策過程緩慢且複雜，消費者對市場資訊收集較深入，因此忠誠度較為低。透過列聯表檢定，資訊產品的品牌忠誠度只與性別、年齡、職業、收入有關。而建構出資訊品牌的忠誠結構為女性，31-35歲，職業以服務業、自由業、行政人員與家管忠誠度較明顯，而收入則以四萬以上的中高收入者最顯著。至於品牌聯想分析則發現，SONY、samsung、BenQ、Acer、hp之聯想皆為正向，顯示皆具有品牌延伸的基本條件。而品牌知覺分析則顯示，資訊品牌最重要的知覺屬性為品質可靠、價格合理與整體質感。在品質可靠上的標竿品牌為SONY、hp、BenQ、Acer; 價格合理的標竿品牌為Acer、BenQ、hp; 整體質感上則為hp、SONY。
本研究以資訊品牌為研究對象，企圖利用消費性商品的品牌分析方法，以消費者的觀點出發，剖析台灣目前資訊品牌的品牌權益。對全球性的資訊品牌而言，台灣市場的營收比例並不算高，在策略的擬定上，地區分公司的決策範圍通常也受到總公司政策的限制，但行銷規劃是因地制宜的活動，品牌策略在追求一致性的同時，也必須考量不同市場的特性與顧客偏好。因此，本研究的結論是否能推論到其他地區，或者代表該品牌在全球市場的整體表現，則必須進行進一步的研究。

The target of this research is IT brands. It intends to use the brand analyzing method of consumer products, to start with consumers’ perspectives, and to analyze the “Brand Equity” of current IT brands in Taiwan. The results of the research reveal that “Brand Recall” and “Brand Recognition” of IT brands have non-zero linearity. “Brand Recall” of IBM and Sony is comparatively higher, which suggests that consumers tend to put it into “Evoked Set” when purchasing IT products. And “Brand Recall” of BenQ, Panasonic, ASUS, samsung is comparatively lower; therefore, “Brand Improvement Strategy” should be adopted to reinforce consumers’ familiarity with these brands. Secondly, “Brand Loyalty Analysis” suggests that the loyalty of IT brands is about 20% to 35%, which is comparatively lower than general consumer products. The brand loyalty of IT products is only related to sex, age, job, and income. The loyalty of females, age 31 to 35, service industry, freelance, administrative staff, and house-keeping jobs in the loyalty structure is more obvious. And people with the income higher than 40,000 have the highest brand loyalty. In “Brand Association Analysis”, it suggests that the associations of SONY, samsung, BenQ, Acer, hp are all positive, which further reveals that they all have the fundamental elements like “Brand Extended”. In “Perceived Quality Analysis”, it suggests that the most important “Perceived Attribute” of IT brands are reliable quality, reasonable price, and overall quality. The leading brands with reliable quality are SONY, hp, BenQ, Acer. The leading brands with reasonable price are Acer, BenQ, hp; the ones with overall quality are hp and SONY.

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究流程 4
1.5 章節結構 5
第二章 文獻回顧 6
2.1 品牌定義 6
2.2 品牌認同計劃 7
2.3 品牌權益 11
2.4 高科技品牌管理 20
2.5 文獻彙整 21
第三章 研究方法 23
3.1 觀念性架構 23
3.2 研究分析流程 25
3.3 研究假說 32
3.4 統計方法 32
3.5 問卷設計 36
3.6 抽樣設計 38
第四章 實證分析 40
4.1 資料結構分析 40
4.2 品牌市場分析 43
4.3 品牌知名分析 45
4.4 品牌忠誠分析 48
4.5 品牌知覺分析 52
4.6 品牌聯想分析 63
第五章 結論與建議 72
5.1 研究發現 72
5.2 策略涵義 74
5.3 研究貢獻 75
5.4 研究限制 75
5.5 後續研究建議 76
參考文獻 77
中文部份 77
英文部份 78
附錄A：問卷 81

中文部份
(1) 方世榮譯（1995），行銷管理學，台北：東方書局。
(2) 艾豐（2003），品牌經營策略，台北；宏文館。
(3) 吳克振譯（2001），品牌管理，台北；華泰。
(4) 沈雲驄、湯宗勳譯（1998），品牌行銷法則，台北；商周文化。
(5) 周文賢與李宏達（1992），市場調查與行銷策略研擬，台北：華泰文化。
(6) 周文賢與吳金潮（1996），碩士論文撰寫方法，台北：華泰文化。
(7) 周文賢（1997），統計學，台北：智勝文化。
(8) 周文賢（1999），行銷管理─市場分析與策略規劃，台北：智勝文化。
(9) 周文賢（2001），多變量統計分析-SAS/STAT之應用，台北：智勝文化。
(10) 周文賢（2002），市場分析與品牌管理之研究，國立台北大學企業管理學系未出版研究報告。
(11) 林添貴譯（2000），品牌塑造，台北：智庫文化。
(12) 胡若堯（1994），自創國際品牌關鍵成功因素之研究，國立台灣大學商學研究所未出版博士論文。
(13) 胡政源（2002），品牌關係與顧客權益，台北；新文京開發。
(14) 施振榮（2000），品牌管理，台北；大塊文化。
(15) 郭瓊琍（2003），品牌策略，台北；五南書局。
(16) 劉秋枝譯（2002），再造行銷大革命-建立品牌影響力，台北；美商麥格羅希爾。
(17) 鄭新嘉、陳守煒譯（2000），eBrand：如何打響網路品牌，台北；聯經出版。
英文部份
(1) Aaker, Jennifer (1995), ”Conceptualizing and Measuring Brand
Personality”, Harvard Business Review, October 1995, pp. 96-108.
(2) Aaker, David A. (1982), “Positioning Your Brand”, Business Horizons, Vol. 25, pp. 56-62.
(3) Aaker, David A. (1996), “Building Strong Brands”, New York：Free Press, 1996, pp. 203.
(4) Aaker, David A. and Jacobson, Robert (1987), “The Strategic Role of Product Quality”, Journal of Marketing, October 1987, pp.31-44.
(5) Aaker, David A. (1991), “Managing Brand Equity”, New York：Free Press, 1991.
(6) Aaker, David A. and Carmon, Ziv (1992), “The Effectiveness of Brand Name Strategies at Creating Brand Recall”, working paper,University of California at Berkeley, July 1992.
(7) Alba, Joseph W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 411-453.
(8) Baker, William, Hutchinson, J. Wesley, Moore, Danny, and Nedungadi, Prkash (1986), “Brand Familiarity and Advertising：Effects in the Evoked Set and Brand Preference”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 637-642.
(9) Barwise, Patrick and Robertson, Thomas (1992), “Brand Portfolios”, European Management Journal, No. 10, pp. 277-285.
(10) Boulding, William, Lee, Eunkyu, and Staelin, Richard (1994), “Mastering the Mix：Do Advertising, Promotion, and Sales Force Activities Lead to Differentiation?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 159-172.
(11) Chernatony, Leslie de and McWilliam, Gil (1989), ”The Varying Nature of Brands as Assets”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 8, pp. 339-349.
(12) Dobni, Dawn and Zinkhan, George M. (1990), “In Search of Brand Image：A Foundation Analysis”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 110-119.
(13) Edell, Julie A. and Burke, Marian C. (1987), “The Power of Feelings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 421-433.
(14) Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), ”Managing Brand Equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-33.
(15) Farquhar, Peter H., Han, Julia Y., Herr, Paul M., and Ijiri, Yuji (1992), “Strategies for Leveraging Master Brands”, Marketing Research, pp. 32-43.
(16) Johnson, Tod (1992), “The Inherent Value of Brands：Results From Over Fifteen Years of Brand Loyalty Data”, Third Annual ARF Advertising and Promotion Workshop.
(17) Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, pp. 1-29.
(18) Keller, Kevin Lane and Aaker, David A. (1997), “Management the Corporate Brand：The Effects of Corporate Marketing Activity on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”, Marketing Science Institute working paper #97-106, Camage, MA, 1997.
(19) Keller, Kevin Lane, Heckler, Susan, and Houston, Michael J. (1998), “The Effects of Brand Name Suggestiveness on Recall of Advertising Effects”, Journal of Marketing, January 1998, in press.
(20) Lexlerc, Frances, Schmitt, Bernd H., and Dube, Laurette (1994), ”Foreign Branding and its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 263-270.
(21) Lewis, Ian M. (1993), “Brand Equity or Why the Board Directors Needs Marketing Research”, ARF Fifth Annual Advertising and Promotion Workshop.
(22) MacInnis, Deborah J. and Nakomoto, Kent (1991), “Factors That Influence Consumers’ Evaluations of Brand Extensions”, Karl Eller School of Management, University of Arizona, 1991.
(23) Mason, Charlotte H. and Milne, George R. (1994), “An Approach for Identifying Cannibalization within Product Line Extensions and Multi-Brand Strategy”, Journal of Business Research, No. 31, pp.163-170.
(24) Milewicz, John and Herbig, Paul (1994), “Evaluating the Brand Extension Decision Using a Model of Reputation Building”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 3, pp. 39-47.
(25) Murphy, John (1994), “Brand Strategy”, Upper Saddle River, NJ：Prentice Hall, pp. 32-43.
(26) Nedungadi, Prakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets：Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 263-276.
(27) Nedungadi, Pralash and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1985), “The Prototypicality of Brands：Relationships With Brand Awareness, Preference, and Usage”, Advances in Customer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 489-503.
(28) Park, C. Whan, Jaworski, Bernard J., and MacInnis, Deboran J. (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 621-635.
(29) Sujan, Mita and Bettman, James R. (1989), “The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions：Some Insights from Schema Research”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 454-467.