臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

品牌最初的意義不僅讓生產者標記所生產的商品，也讓最終消費者能區別不同的生產者及其商品，但國內建築條鋼產業之企業品牌及產品品牌的概念只存在於中間商、營建商及工程領域內之專業人士，且產業實務上鋼筋產品之流通體系複雜，最終購屋者更難以知悉建築物內之鋼筋品牌知識；條鋼業者再努力生產出好的產品，行銷訊息無法傳達至最終購屋者，使條鋼業者長期陷於同業間之價格競爭；基於此產業之特殊背景，本研究動機以條鋼業立場探討條鋼業與營建業進行品牌聯盟，共同傳達行銷訊息至最終購屋者並改變現有條鋼廠之銷售通路；研究目的在於尋求條鋼業與營建商進行品牌聯盟及產品要素品牌打造之實務運行方式，並建立起以最終購屋者為基礎之條鋼業企業品牌權益。
本研究依紮根理論質化研究方法設計二階段研究，每階段各包含資料蒐集及資料分析程序，並秉持紮根理論之程序以資料蒐集與資料分析的方式並行；資料
蒐集方式以深入訪談營建商之企業主及專業經理人並取得研究資料；資料分析方式以紮根理論研究法之開放性編碼、主軸編碼程序，於二階段研究中使資料達理論飽和後進行選擇性編碼程序。二階段研究之開放性編碼及主軸編碼程序總結發展出關鍵的主類別及主軸，並以選擇性編碼程序發展出條鋼業與營建業進行企業層級之企業品牌聯盟，與產品層級之產品品牌聯盟、產品要素品牌打造、產品聯合品牌行銷，共同的四組核心類別分別為品牌聯盟夥伴評選階段、品牌聯盟夥伴溝通階段、品牌聯盟實行階段及品牌聯盟成效評估階段。夥伴評選階段建議條鋼業者重新定義顧客的範圍並擴大至潛在購屋者，評選有一致性品牌元素且共同經營理念的營建商，夥伴溝通階段結合營建商的行銷策略，實行階段為共同進行整合行銷溝通，評估成效階段為實證探討購屋者對條鋼業之企業品牌或產品品牌、營建業之企業品牌或產品品牌雙方品牌聯盟前後，消費者行為的變化及潛在購屋者對聯盟前後之產品知覺及購買意願提升的程度。條鋼業與營建業進行品牌聯盟並以最終購屋者知覺價值為依歸，使其知覺建築物內部看不見的鋼鐵品質進而提升營建商之主建築物產品價值，以達成品牌聯盟之功效並提升雙方之競爭力。

The initial meaning of brand is not only to label the products for manufacturers, but also allow consumers to distinguish the differences among all the manufactories and their products. The concepts of the business brand and product brand of Reinforcing bar industry only are known for professional constructors and steel retailers within this industry. The channels of Reinforcing bar marketing are complicated. It’s difficult for consumers to learn any knowledge of the Re-bar brand from the appearance of the buildings. Even for those Reinforcing bar Manufacturers who provide excellent product quality, the marketing information still can not be efficiently delivered to consumers. Manufactories often suffer serious competitions to each other. Based on this special industrial background and from the Reinforcing bar industries point of view, this study motivates and discusses about how to create the ingredient branding, do brand alliances with construction industry, provide and deliver marketing information altogether to the final consumers and to change the Reinforcing bar industry sales channel. This study aims to find out how to proceed the ingredient branding and brand alliance for Reinforcing bar and construction industry to have the end-users know their business brand equity.
The research consists of two phase based upon the grounded throry and the qualitative research. Each phase includes the processes of data collecting and data analysis. The data was collected by depth interview with the owner of the constructions and professional managers. The open coding and axial coding procedure of the grounded theory were used to generate the categories and the axial of the research, and then to analyze these data to have theoretical saturation to proceed select coding. And use it to draw four common core categories for the brand alliance between Re-bar and construction industries: Brand Alliance Partner Selection Stage, Brand Alliance Partner Communication Stage, Brand Alliance Partner In-practice Stage and Brand Alliance Partner Effects Assessment. For the business brand alliance, product brand alliance, product ingredient branding and product co-branding all have the above mentioned four stages. It recommends Reinforcing bar manufacturers to redefine the customers, not just for the retailers or constructions but extend to the end-users of building, to select constructors having consistent brand element and common business concept in the brand alliance partner selection stage; unite the constructors as marketing strategic for brand alliance partner communication stage; proceed integrated marketing strategic for in-practice stage. The final stage is to access does consumers perceive the differences towards the brand alliance of Reinforcing bar and construction industry and their behavior towards this. The sufficient reason for branding alliance between Reinforcing bar and construction industry is based on consumers perceived and help them to perceive the unseen reinforcing bar steel quality inside the buildings. Therefore, it not only adds values to buildings but also helps the constructions and reinforcing bar industries gaining competitiveness through brand alliance.

目 錄
第一章 緒論 01
第一節 研究背景與動機 01
第二節 研究目的 03
第三節 研究主題及範圍 04
第四節 研究流程 06
第二章 文獻探討 07
第一節 品牌聯盟 07
第二節 聯合品牌行銷與產品要素品牌打造 11
第三節 質化研究 12
第四節 紮根理論 14
第三章 條鋼業及營建業之產業概況 21
第一節 條鋼業之概況 21
第二節 營建業之概況 26
第四章 二階段研究 31
第一節 第一階段研究 33
第二節 第二階段研究 79
第三節 選擇性編碼 135
第五章 結論與建議 146
第一節 研究結論 146
第二節 研究建議 149
參考文獻 151
中文文獻 151
英文文獻 152
附錄154
一.共同研究邀請函 154
二.第一階段訪談題綱 155
三.第二階段訪談題綱 156
四.本研究開放性編碼原則 158

中文文獻
1.王文科(2000)，《質的教育研究法》，師大書苑有限公司。
2.台灣經濟研究院，2006。《鋼鐵產業現況及發展與台塑鋼鐵社會經濟成本效益分析》。計畫委託單位：台塑鋼鐵股份有限公司
3.呂鴻德(1996)，《企業策略聯盟策略對品牌聯盟權益影響之研究》，國立雲林科技大學企業管理技術研究所碩士論文。
4.呂芳洲(1998)，《品牌聯盟策略對品牌權益影響之研究》，國立雲林科技大學企業管理技術研究所碩士論文。
5.吳芝儀、廖梅花(2001)，《質性研究入門》：紮根理論研究方法/Anselm Strauss，Juliet Corbin 原著.嘉義市:濤石文化，2001。
6.胡幼慧(1996)，《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》，巨流圖書有限公司。
7.徐宗國(1997)，《質性研究概論》Anselm Strauss、Juliet Corbin著:徐宗國編譯台北，巨流。
8.徐世同(2008)，《策略品牌管理》/Stragegic Brand Management.Kevin Lane Keller原著.台北市：華泰文化.台灣培生教育出版社。
9.殷仲華(1997)，《品牌聯盟動機、聯盟型態與品牌權益關係之研究—資源基礎觀點之研究》，
中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
10.張國殷(2010)，《主要及次要要素品牌如何影響消費者對品牌聯盟產品之評價》，中興大學行銷研究所碩士論文。
11.陳靜瑩(1995)，《影響消費者對品牌聯盟評價因素之研究》，中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
12.陳蕙卿(2003)，《品牌個性契合度與產品互補性對品牌聯盟成效之影響》，真理大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
13.陳向明(2002)，《社會科學質的研究》，初版，台北市，五南圖書，2002，2月。
14.曾定祁(2007)，《台灣建築產業綱路行銷趨勢之研究》，淡江大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
15.蔡宗憲(2007)，《我國鋼鐵業因應全球氣侯變遷趨勢下之產業發展與二氧化碳減量策略評估》，國立台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所，碩士論文。
16.趙碧華，朱美珍(2000)，《研究方法：社會工作暨人文科學領域的運用》/Allen Rubin， Earl Babbie著：趙碧華，朱美貞編譯，台北市，學富文化。
17.劉文城(2003)，《建設公司行銷策略之探討－以高雄為例》，國立中山大學管理學院高階經營碩士學程碩士在職專班碩士論文。
18.鍾尹堂(2009)，《房地產預售制度對景氣與營運影響之探討》，逢甲大學經營管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
19.營建署(2003)092301020000G1004 《建築產業健全發展制度面之檢討》發布日期：2003-10-03
20.顏寧、黃詠光、吳欣隆(2009)，《建構紮根理論》/Kathy Charmas原著.台北市：五南。

英文文獻
1.Aaker, D. A. and K. L. Keller(1990),“Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, pp.27-41.
2.Aaker,David A. (1991),Managing Brand Equity; Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,New York:The Free Press.
3.Berkowitz,E.(1994),Marketing,Irwin, Chicago, IL.
4.Cooke, S. and P. Ryan,(2000),“Brand Alliances: From Reputation Endorsement to Collaboration on Core Competencies”, Irish Marketing Review, pp.36-41.
5.Charmaz,K.,(2006).Constructing Grounded Theory.SAGE Publications of London,Thousand Oaks,New Delhi and Singapore.
6.Ferrell,O.C.and Hartline,Michael(2005),Marketing Strategy,3rd edition,Thomson South-Western.
7.Glaser,B.G.,& Strauss,A.L.(1965).”Awareness of Dying”.Chicago:Aldine.
8.Glaser,B.G.,& Strauss,A.L.(1967).The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago:Aldine
9.Keller,K.L.(2008).Stragegic Brand Management:Building,Measuring,and Managing Brand Equity,3rd Edition,published by Person Education,Inc,Prentice Hall.
10.McCarthy, M.S.and D.G.Norris(1999),”Improving Competitive Position Using Branded Ingredient”,The Journal of Product and Brand Management.Santa Barbara. Vo1.8,p.267
11.Norris,D.G.(1993),”Intel Inside:Branding a Compenent in a Business Market”,The Journal of Business,Industrial Marketing, pp.14-24
12.Park,C. W., S. Y. Jun, and A. D. Shocker(1996),“Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects,”Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.33,No.4,November,pp. 453-466
13.Rao, A.R., Ruekert, R.W. (1994), “Brand alliances as signals of product quality”, Sloan
Management Review, 36, pp.87-97.
14.Rodrigue, C.S. & Biswas, A. (2004), “Brand Alliance dependency and exclusivity: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(7), pp.477-487
15.Strauss,A.L.(1987).Qualitative analysis for social scientists.New York:Cambridge University Press.
16.Strauss,A.,& Corbin,J.(1990).Basics of qualitative:Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park,CA:Sage.
17.Shocker, A. D., R. K. Sricastava and R. W. Ruekert(1994),“Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Management: An Introduction to the Special Issue”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.31(2), pp.149-158.
18.Simonin, B.L, Ruth, J.A. (1998), "‘Is a company known by the company it keeps?
Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, pp.30-42.
19.Smith, D. C. and C. W. Park(1992), “the Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share Advertising Efficiency”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.29,No.3,296-313
20.Visser, E. (1998),“Multibranding: Symptom of an Unclear Branding Policy”, Design Management Journal, winter, pp.60-64.