(3.235.245.219) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/10 01:51
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:吳祈忠
研究生(外文):Chi-Chung Wu
論文名稱:品牌價值評估—以台塑石化為例
論文名稱(外文):Using Interbrand and Hirose model to assess the Brand Value: Formosa Petrochemical Corporation
指導教授:蔡武德蔡武德引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wu-Der Tsay
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄應用科技大學
系所名稱:商務經營研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:一般商業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:75
中文關鍵詞:品牌價值HIROSE ModelInterbrand Model
外文關鍵詞:Brand ValueHIROSE ModelInterbrand Model
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:1507
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
隨著近年來石油價格的大幅起落,攸關能源產業的議題便是全球關心的焦點,台灣為一海島型國家,本身並無特殊的能源蘊藏 (原油),因此石油便是台灣經濟發展最重要的因素,也是台灣最賴以生存的條件。但由於國際原油價格的變動,也再再影響台灣整體國家民生之發展,是以也突顯出石油產業的重要性。
因此本研究以台塑石化公司品牌為研究標的,應用HIROSE品牌鑑價方法來計算台塑石化公司品牌之價值,且與Interbrand模型所計算之品牌價值相比較,並進行差異比較實証分析。在 Interbrand 各模型細探分析下,研究發現台塑石化在現有油品市場競爭中,事實上就主要油品供應市場而言仍處於獨占與寡占(其實應是近似獨占局面)市場間,消費者其實仍是價格接受者。
「台塑石化」品牌價值雖呈正值,但隱含有品牌價值有萎縮的情形。透過本研究分析亦發現,台塑石化品牌價值之變動,其主要的原因乃受制於國際油價、國內市場競爭變動之影響較深。從 HIROSE 模式角度本研究亦發現,以製造導向的台塑石化公司應正視其品牌在市場中的影響力,善加利用其品牌之價值優勢,以創造除本業外更佳的利基與市場價值,避免過度依賴其國際市場,並隨之波動,影響到其本身競爭力。
Interbrand 模式是傾向較主觀之估計,有可能會因而造成品牌價值之虛增。在 HIROSE 模式下,在品牌價值計算上傾向較保守客觀。而從「台塑石化」這個品牌價值的衡量上,本研究之結果顯示了國內其他傳統產業,如台塑石化其品牌價值分析之重要性與必要性。本研究的確是有提醒其他國內製造導向企業應正視其品牌在市場中的影響力,善用其品牌之價值,並藉以調整其經營策略,以創造更佳的利基與市場價值。
As price of petroleum rises and falls with large margin in recent years, the topic of concerns the energy industry have been focus on in the whole world, Taiwan is one of island country, it has no special energy resource by itself (crude oil) so the petroleum is the most important factor of the economics development in Taiwan. It is the condition of existence for Taiwan to depend on. But because of the change of the international crude oil price influence the development of the whole national people's livelihood of Taiwan, it is showing the petroleum industry to play the most importance role.
Therefore, the Formosa petrochemical corporations were the selected subject of this research. Hirose methodology (METI, 2002) was applied to evaluate the value of the Formosa brand, and the results were compared with those which were induced by the Interbrand model. Then, the difference was analyzed and the empirical analysis after renaming was conducted to evaluate the exact value of the Formosa brand. With various Interbrand models, it was found that the petroleum market was still oligopolistic and almost monopolistic. Besides, consumers remained the price takers. Thus, the influence of the renaming on the brand value was limited.
The brand value of Formosa is positive and has been sliding year by year, which indicates the implying shrinkage of the brand value. In this study, through analysis, the change of the brand value of Formosa was found subject to the international petroleum price and the domestic market competition change. Also, in terms of Hirose methodology, it was found that the manufacture-oriented Formosa shall value the influence and take good advantage of its brand name in the market to create better niche and market value and to avoid over-dependence on the international petrol market, which was with economic fluctuation affecting the competing ability of Formosa.
The Interbrand model intended to make more subjective estimation, which might exaggerate the brand value. Under Hirose methodology, the estimation of the brand value was more objective since the calculation was conducted with the management performance data on sales, cost and promotion that were compared with those of the target companies. And with measurement of the brand value of Formosa, the results of this study showed the essentiality of analyzing the brand value of the other traditional industries, such as Formosa. The current study did remind the other domestic manufacture-oriented industries of valuing the influence and worth of the brand name in the market in order to adjust the management strategies to create better niche and market value.
目錄
摘 要... I
ABSTRACT II
目錄 V
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
第一章、緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與範圍 7
第三節 研究假設 8
第二章、文獻探討 9
第一節品牌 9
第二節品牌的重要性 13
第三節品牌的價值 15
第四節品牌評價的方法 21
第五節小結 25
第三章、研究方法 28
第一節研究設計流程架構 28
第二節研究對象與資料來源 29
第三節模式運用與發展 30
第四節應用模式小結 36
第四章、資料分析與研究結果 38
第一節 INTERBRAND模式分析 38
第二節 HIROSE模式分析 50
第三節 INTERBRAND 和 HIROSE比較與小結 56
第五章、結論 60
第六章、研究限制與未來研究建議 67
第一節 研究限制 67
第一節 未來研究建議 69
參考文獻 70
英文部份 70
中文部份 72
附錄 1 (世界百大品牌價值排名) 74
英文部份
1.AMA. (2007). Brand. Retrieved 05/06, 2007, from http://www.marketingpower.com/mg-dictionary.php?SearchFor=brand+&SearchDefinitionsAlso=ON&Searched=1
2.Arvidsson, A. (2006). Brand Value. The Journal of Brand Management, 13(3), 188-192.
3.Beldona, S., & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the “Brand” Back into Store Brands: An Exploratory Examination of Store Brands and Brand Personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16(4), 226-235.
4.Burnett, J., & Hutton, R. B. (2007). New Consumers Need New Brands Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(5), 342-347.
5.Calderón, H., Cervera, A., & Mollá, A. (1997). Brand Assessment: A Key Element of Marketing Strategy. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(5), 293-304.
6.Davis, S. (1994). Commentary: Securing the Future of Your Brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3(2), 42-49.
7.Dinnie, K. (2005). 21st-Century Perspectives on Global Brands. Brand Management, 12(5), 316-318.
8.Ewing, M. T. (2006). Brands, Artifacts and Design Theory: A Call to Action. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(4), 255-256.
9.Feldmeth, J., & Swystun, J. (2007). The 2007 Brand Marketers Report: Interbrand.
10.Gelder, S. V. (2005). The New Imperatives for Global Branding: Strategy, Creativity and Leadership. Brand Management, 12(5), 395-404.
11.Hankinson, P., Lomax, W., & Hand, C. (2007). The Time Factor in Re-branding Organizations: Its Effects on Staff Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour in UK Charities Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(4), 236-246.
12.Hirose, Y. (2003). Valuating Brands.(Economy Feature) Retrieved 06/01, 2007, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-187049/Valuating-brands-Economy-Feature.html#abstract.
13.Interbrand. (2006). Best Global Brands 2006. New York: Interbrand.
14.Johansson, J. K. (2005). The Esteem of Global Brands. Brand Management, 12(5), 339-354.
15.Kapferer, J. N. (2005). The Post-Global Grand. Brand Management, 12(5), 319-324.
16.Kotler, P., & Lane, K. (2006). Marketing Management (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River: N.J. : Pearson Prentice Hall.
17.Kumar, S., & Blomqvist, K. H. (2004). Mergers and Acquisitions: Making Brand Equity a Key Factor in M&A Decision-Making. Strategy & Leadership, 32(2), 20-27.
18.Logman, M. (2007). Logical Brand Management in a Dynamic Context of Growth and Innovation Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(4), 257-268.
19.Martín-Consuegra , D., Molina, A., & Esteban, Á. (2007). An Integrated Model of Price, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis in the Service Sector. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16(7), 459-468.
20.Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Corporate Branding, Identity and Communications: A Contemporary Perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1/2), 1-4.
21.METI. (2002). The Report of the Committee on Brand Valuation The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry The Government of Japan.
22.Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand Equity Valuation: A Global Perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(4), 275-290.
23.Noble, J. (2005). Branding: From a Commercial Perspective. Brand Management, 13(3), 206-214.
24.Petromilli, M., Morrison, D., & Million, M. (2002). Brand Architecture: Building Brand Portfolio Value. Strategy & Leadership 30(5), 22-28.
25.Rowley, J. (2004). Online Branding. Online Information Review, 28(2), 131-138.
26.Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: McGraw-Hill Inc.
27.Tollington, T. (1998). Brands: The Asset Definition and Recognition Test. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(3), 180-192.
28.TRS. (2007). Solution. Retrieved 06/01, 2007, from http://www.totalresearchsolutions.com/index-3.html.
29.Wheeler, A. R., Richey, R. G., Tokkman, M., & Sablynsi, C. J. (2006). Retaining Employees for Service Competency: The Role of Corporate Brand Identity. Brand Management, 14(1/2), 96-113.
30.Wood, L. (2000). Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and Management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662-669.
31.Y&R. (2007). Brand Asset Valuation. Retrieved 06/01, 2007, from http://www.yr.com/
中文部份
32.Blair, M., Armstrong, R., & Murphy, M. (2005)。品牌管家,(江惠頌,譯)。台北市: 滾石文化股份有限公司。
33.Randall, G. (2000)。塑造品牌的威力,(蔡佩娟,譯)。台北市: 小知堂文化事業有限公司。
34.工商時報 (2006/09/28)。台灣10大國際品牌傳產衝勁足。工商時報。
35.洪順慶 (2006)。台灣品牌競爭力。台北市: 天下雜誌股份有限公司。
36.胡政源 (2006)。品牌管理。台北縣: 新文京開發出版股份有限公司。
37.孫家勛 (2006)。你,就是唯一的品牌。台北市: 喬木書房。
38.張文瀞、吳幸螢 (2005)。品牌聲譽、產業專業化與審計人員市場佔有率關聯性: 取消審計公費下限分析,會計評論,40,91-118。
39.張愛華 (2004)。品牌鑑價。2009/04/15,取自 http://ba.nccu.edu.tw/aihwa/Product/%E5%93%81%E7%89%8C%E9%91%91%E5%83%B9.ppt。
40.陳永昌 (2006)。品牌之價值。台北市: 經濟部智慧財產局。
41.經濟部國營事業委員會 (2002)。國營事業管理法。 2007/04/01,取自 http://www.moeacnc.gov.tw/CNCH/CNCH0101.html。
42.經濟部能源局 (2009)。能源統計資料。2009/04/01,取自http://www.moeaec.gov.tw/Statistics/oil/StatisticsOil.aspx.
43.鄧振源、曾國雄 (1989a)。層級分析法 (AHP) 的內涵特性與應用 (下),中國統計學報,第27卷,第7期,頁1-20。
44.鄧振源、曾國雄 (1989b)。層級分析法 (AHP) 的內涵特性與應用 (上),中國統計學報,第27卷,第6期,頁5-22。
45.蔡瑤昇、廖森貴、石柏洲 (2004)。品牌對消費者的態度與行為量表之建構。行銷評論,1(1),37-52。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔