臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

台灣地區輪胎市場由於胃納量有限，本地原有之七大汽車胎廠家之產能早已遠超過內銷市場之所需，加上國際品牌紛紛進駐，因此市場競爭十分激烈，過去只有運用在民生消費品的行銷手法已普遍運用來促銷輪胎，另一方面由於汽車相關資訊的取得容易與消費意識的抬頭，輪胎購買已轉變為高涉入的消費行為。本研究係以某輪胎品牌為例，藉由該公司之實際調查研究，來了解台灣轎車輪胎消費者的特徵及其購買行為模式，並透過對該公司品牌權益之衡量，來檢視台灣轎車輪胎市場上，主要品牌的權益概況。茲歸納結論如下：

一、在消費者“人口統計特徵”方面：
(一)年齡大多集中在36歲至40歲的區域之間。
(二)以男性為多數。
(三)教育程度以高中及專科的使用者較多。
(四)購買者家庭月收入在NT$40,001至NT$60,000及NT$80,001至NT$100,000之間最為普遍。
(五)購買者個人月收入在NT$20,001至NT$60,000之間最為普遍。
(六)消費者的職業大多為專業及經理人員、服務業從業人員、以及其他技術性勞工。
(七)對於車輛的用途，主要是在業務或工作上，偶爾用於渡假以及購物。

二、在消費者“購買行為模式”方面：
(一)購買輪胎的品牌中，以Bridgestone(普利司通)及Michelin(米其林)二個品牌的佔有率最高。
(二)購買輪胎的時機，大多是在“當輪胎開始看起來磨損時”才考慮更換輪胎。
(三)購買的地點(通路)：大多數的消費者是在“一般汽車維修廠”及“連鎖輪胎專賣店(如：米其林、普利司通、固特異)”來更換輪胎。
(四)台灣地區的輪胎消費者對於輪胎大多不具品牌忠誠度。而當消費者心目中沒有設定要購買的品牌時，“經銷商或售貨員的推薦”即成為影響消費者購買決策的最主要的因素。
(五)當消費者心目中沒有設定要購買的品牌時，“品牌的聲譽”是決定品牌選擇的關鍵。
(六)在轎車輪胎消費者的購買決策過程中，通常會進行資訊的蒐集。蒐集的方式大多是“請技術人員或專家提供建議”。

三、在消費者對於主要品牌的“購買意願”方面：
市場上的主要輪胎品牌當中，消費者對Michelin(米其林)及Bridgestone(普利司通)二個品牌的購買意願最高，其次為Goodyear(固特異)。而在不同的消費者區格中，又以“Status Conscious”的消費者對Michelin(米其林)品牌的購買意願最高；對Bridgestone(普利司通)品牌而言，則是“Old Countryside Uncle”的消費者對其有較高的購買意願。由此可看出不同品牌定位，鎖定的目標客戶也不相同。

四、在消費者對於主要品牌的“知覺品質”方面：
Michelin(米其林)品牌在每一個項目中，都有最高的知覺品質(平均分數較高)。而Bridgestone(普利司通)與Goodyear(固特異)所帶給消費者的“知覺品質”在各個項目中都非常接近。

五、在消費者對於通路選擇的“主要因素”方面：
台灣地區的轎車輪胎消費者在選擇輪胎通路時，最重要的考慮因素為“地點便利”，另外，“過去在該店購買的經驗”、“親友的推薦”及“銷售人員的產品知識”等也是影響消費者選擇通路的重要因素。

六、在消費者對於主要通路的“知覺品質”方面：
Tire Specialty Store-chain(連鎖輪胎專賣店)通路在消費者心目中，有較高的知覺品質。其中，在“在技術上給很好的建議”及“有很多品牌的選擇”二個項目的表現上，Tire Specialty Store-chain(連鎖輪胎專賣店)與其他通路有較明顯的差異。值得注意的是，Carmaker’s garage(原廠的保養廠)在“可靠”的項目上有最高的評價，但卻也被評價為最“價格昂貴”的通路。

七、在主要品牌的“品牌權益”概況方面：
從消費者的觀點，來檢視台灣轎車輪胎市場上主要品牌的權益概況，發現市場上以Michelin(米其林)品牌的品牌權益最高，其次為Goodyear(固特異)及Bridgestone(普利司通)，造成品牌權益差異的主因為品牌知名度(Saliency)的高低。

The competition of Taiwan tire market is fierce, marketing tactics which in the past only could be seen in consumer goods market are now common in tire market, in addition to the domestic demand is less than the total supply of seven local manufacturers, international brands step into Taiwan one by one. On the other hand, the auto related information is easier to get and consumer conscious are higher than before, “Tire purchase” has become a high involvement consumer behavior. Base on an actual survey result of a tire company, this study is to analyze the features and purchase behavior patterns of Taiwan tire consumers and brand equities of major brands. The conclusions of this study are as following:

1.Demographics of Taiwan tire consumers:
(A)Age category: centralized in 36 to 40
(B)Gender: mainly males
(C)Highest education: high school or college graduate level are the majority
(D)Total monthly household income: NT$40,001 to NT$60,000 and NT$80,001 to NT$100,000 are the majority.
(E)Total monthly personal income: NT$20,001 to NT$60,000 are the majority
(F)Occupation: professionals, managerial, Service ,sales and technicians are the majority
(G)Activities to use the vehicle: mainly for business, sometimes for recreation or shopping.

2.Consumer Behavior:
(A)Bridgestone and Michelin have the relatively higher share among all.
(B)A majority of respondents change tires only when they start looking “worn out”
(C)Majority of the tire purchase comes from the following three types of outlets: Repair Shop/ Garage, Tire Specialty Store-chain
(D)Among those who do not have a brand in mind, their final purchase decision is influenced by “Recommendations of Dealer”.
(E)“Reputation of the brand” is the key factor influencing those consumers to choose a brand who don’t have at least one brand in mind
(F)Most consumers collect information before purchase, the most comment way is to ask for the advice from technicians or specialists.

3.Purchase Intention of major brands:
Among all major brands, Bridgestone and Michelin enjoy the highest Purchase Intention and then followed by Goodyear. In different consumer segments, Michelin has the highest Purchase Intention in “Status Conscious” segments, while Bridgestone has the highest Purchase Intention in “Old Countryside Uncle” segment.

4.Perceived Quality of major brands:
Michelin has the highest “Perceived Quality” (higher score) in each attributes, Bridgestone and Goodyear are very close to each other for each attribute of “Perceived Quality”.

5.Outlets:
Consumers’ perception of a good outlet is most driven by “Convenience of Location”, other factors like “Past Experience “, “Recommendation” and “ Product Knowledge of Outlet Sales Person” are also important.

6.Perceived Quality of Outlets:
Tire Specialty Store-chain has the highest “Perceived Quality”, especially much higher than other outlets in two attributes: ”Good Technical Advice” and “Brand Choice”. “Car Maker’s Garage” has the highest value of “Reliability” but it is also recognized as the most expensive in terms of tire selling price.

7.Brand Equity:
Michelin has the highest Brand Equity in Taiwan, followed by Goodyear and Bridgestone. The difference of Brand Equity is mainly due to the level of Brand Saliency.

目錄
第一章、緒論
第一節、研究動機…………………………………………………………… 1
第二節、研究目的…………………………………………………………… 3
第三節、研究範圍…………………………………………………………… 4
第四節、研究流程…………………………………………………………… 5
第二章、文獻探討
第一節、購買行為與購買決策……………………………………………… 6
第二節、知覺品質、知覺價值與購買意願…………………………………13
第三節、品牌權益……………………………………………………………17
第四節、台灣的轎車輪胎市場………………………………………………28
第三章、研究設計
第一節、研究對象……………………………………………………………33
第二節、問卷設計……………………………………………………………37
第三節、抽樣設計……………………………………………………………40
第四節、資料處理與分析……………………………………………………43
第四章、實證結果與分析
第一節、樣本敘述性分析……………………………………………………44
第二節、購買行為模式分析…………………………………………………50
第三節、購買意願分析………………………………………………………54
第四節、主要品牌的知覺品質分析…………………………………………55
第五節、通路選擇的主要因素分析…………………………………………57
第六節、主要通路的知覺品質分析…………………………………………58
第七節、品牌權益分析………………………………………………………60
第五章、結論與建議
第一節、研究結論……………………………………………………………61
第二節、建議…………………………………………………………………64
第三節、研究貢獻與後續研究建議…………………………………………65

附錄
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………67
問卷……………………………………………………………………………70

表目錄

圖目錄

一、中文部份：
1.台灣區橡膠工業研究試驗中心，我國進口汽車胎廠牌排名，資料時間：91年1月至12月及93年1月至12月。
2.交通部統計處，臺閩地區機動車輛登記數，資料時間：94年1月至12月。
3.李青峰(1999)，產品涉入、品牌權益與市場特性對品牌評估與選擇之影響，成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
4.張重昭、周宇貞(1999)，知覺品質與參考價格對消費者知覺價值與購買意願之影響，企業管理學報，第45 期，頁1-36。
5.許心萍(1999)，運具、商品與象徵符號-小汽車異化問題的社會學解讀，台灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
6.陳富美(2003)，品牌權益、促銷方式及促銷效果關聯之研究-以運動鞋與衛生紙為例，朝陽科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
7.楊文壽(2001)，行動電話手機消費之涉入程度及購買決策相關因素之關聯性研究，國立交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文，P23~28。


二、網路部份：
1.台經院產經資料庫：http://tie.tier.org.tw/tie/index.jsp
2.交通部統計處：http://www.motc.gov.tw
3.台灣區橡膠工業研究試驗中心：http://www.chem121.com.tw

三、西文部份：

1.Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York：The Free Press.
2.Barwise, P. (1993),"Brand Equity: Snark or Boojum,"International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.93-104.
3.Beil, Alexander L. (1992). "How Brand Image Drives Brand Equity," Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (November), pp.6-12.
4.Blackston, Max (1992). "Observations：Building Brand Equity by Managing The Brand's Relationships," Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (May/June), pp.79-83.
5.Cabb-Walgren, Cathy J, Cynthia A., Naveen Donthu (1995). "Brand Equity, Brand Preference, and Purchase Intent," Journal of Ad vertising, 15 (Fall), pp.25-40.
6.Dickson,Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer (1990),"The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,"Journal of Marketing,42(July), pp.42-53.
7.Dodd, Monroe,and Grewal (1991), "Effect of Price, Brand,and Store Information on Buyer's Product Evaluations", Journal of Marketing Research, (August), pp.307-319
8.Engel, J. E., R. D. Blackwell and P. W. Miniard (1990), Consumer Behavior,The DrydenPress.
9.Farquhar, Peter H. (1990), "Managing Brand Equity", Journal of Advertising Research, 30 (August/September). RC7-12.
10.Holbrook and Kim P. Corfman (1985), "Quality and Value in theConsumption Experience: Phaedrus Rides Again", in Perceived Quality, MA Lexington Books, pp. 31-57.
11.Kamakura, Wagner A., & Gary J. Russell (1993), "Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (March), pp.9-22.
12.Keller, Kevin L. (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), pp.1-22.
13.Keller & Lane (1998), Strategic Brand Management：Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall.
14.Kotler, P (1997).Market management：Analysis, Planning, Implemenation, and Control,9th ed,New Jersey：Pretice-Hall.
15.Kotler, P., & Armstrong (1994). Principles of Marketing. (6th Ed), Annotated Instructor's Edition, Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc., p143.
16.Krishnan, H. Shanker & Dipankar Chakravarti (1993). "Varieties of Brand Memory Induced by Advertising：Determinants, Measures, and Relationships," In Brand Equity & Advertising, David A. Aaker & Alexander L. Biel, ed. New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 213-231.
17.Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, pp.349-356.
18.Lassar, Walfried, Banwari Mittal, & Arun Sharma (1995). "Measuring Customer-Based Brand Equity," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), 11-19.
19.Lutz, Richard (1986), "Quality is as Quality Does: An Attitudinal Perspective on Consumer Quality Judgments", presentation to theMarketing Science Institute Trustees' Meeting, Cambridge, MA.
20.Mahajan, Vijay, Vithala R. Rao, & Rajendra K. Srivastava (1994). "An Approach to Assess the Importance of Brand Equity in Acquisition Decisions," The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11 (June), pp.221-236.
21.Monroe, Kent B. and R. Krishnan (1985), "The Effect of Price on Subjective Product Evaluations", in Perceived Quality,MA Lexington Books, pp.209-232.
22.Monroe, Kent B. (1990), "Pricing: Marking Profitable Decision", Second edition, New York, Harper and Row
23.Myers, James H. and Allan D. Shocker (1981), "The Nature of Product-Related Attributes", Research in Marketing,Vol.5, pp.211-236.
24.Olsavsky, Richard W.(1985), "Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective", in Perceived Quality, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 3-29.
25.Olson and Thomas J. Reynolds (1983), "Understanding Consumers' Cognitive Structures: Implications for Advertising Strategy", Advertising and Consumer Psychology, MA: Lexington Books,vov 3. pp.12-16.
26.Richins, M.L., & Bloch, P.H. (1986). After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), pp.280-285.
27.Sawyer, Alan G. and Peter R. Dickson (1984) "Psychological Perspectives of Consumer Response to Sales Promotion," in Research on Sales Promotions: Collected Papers, edited by Katherine E. Jacz, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, pp.1-21
28.Simon, Carol J. & Mary W. Sullivan (1993). "The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity：A Financial Approach," Marketing Science, 12 (Winter), pp.25-52.
29.Smith, Diana (1988), "Building Bridges to a Brand-New Self," Prevention, 40 (September), pp.74-77.
30.Solomon, Micharl. R. (1999), Consumer Behavior, 4thed. Prentice-Hall,Inc,N.J.
31.Swait, Joffre, Erdem, Louviere Tulin, & Chris Dubelaar (1993). "The Equalization Price：A Measure of Consumer-Perceived Brand Equity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (March), pp.23-45.
32.Thaler, Richard (1985), "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, 4, pp.199-244
33.Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), "Measuring the involvement construct" Journal of Consumer Research. 12 (Dec), pp.341-352.
34.Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), "Consumer Perceptions of Price,Quality and Value：A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence",Journal of Marketing ,vol. 52(July), pp.2-22.