Research Article


DOI :10.17064/iuifd.372587   IUP :10.17064/iuifd.372587    Full Text (PDF)

The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector

Gül Banu Dayanç Kıyat

In today’s business world, the new information era reveals the importance of perceived reputation management for brands. No matter how high the quality of the product is, as long its perceived reputation is not good, it is worthless from an economic point of view. Although a plethora of research has been conducted on reputation quotient, no study on perceived quality has been conducted in Turkey’s mobile communication sector. In this study, the relationship between reputation quotient and perceived quality was investigated. The reputation quotient and perceived quality of four bestselling mobile phones in Turkey, namely, ‘LG, Samsung, iPhone and HTC’ were examined. Fombrun’s “Reputation Quotient” and Aaker’s “Perceived Quality” models were employed to measure variables in the research model. By means of the convenience sampling method, 434 participants completed the study’s instrument on a voluntary basis. Data were analysed with SPSS 21.0 and a proposed relationship was tested through regression analysis. The results showed that there is positive relationship between reputation quotient and perceived quality. Furthermore perceived high quality is a necessity for high perceived reputation, but it is not sufficient as shown in the example of HTC. 

DOI :10.17064/iuifd.372587   IUP :10.17064/iuifd.372587    Full Text (PDF)

Türki̇ye’de Mobi̇l İleti̇şi̇m Sektöründeki̇ Markalarin İti̇bar Katsayisi ve Algilanan Kali̇te İli̇şkisi

Gül Banu Dayanç Kıyat

Günümüz iş dünyasındaki yeni bilgi çağı, markalar için itibar algısı yönetiminin önemini göstermektedir. Nekadar kaliteli ürün üretirsek üretelim itibarlı olarak algılanmıyorsak ekonomik olarak değersizdir. Yazında, itibar katsayısı ile ilgili çalışmalar olmakla birlikte, Türkiye’de mobil iletişim sektöründe Algılanan Kalite ve İtibar Katsayısı ilişkisi ile ilgili herhangi bir araştırmaya rastlanılmamıştır. Bu çalışmada, itibar katsayısı ve algılanan kalite arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Türkiyede en iyi satış yapan dört mobil iletişim kurumunlarında: ‘LG, Samsung, iPhone ve HTC’nin itibar katsayısı ve algılanan kalite’ incelenmiştir. Fombrun’un “İtibar Katsayısı” ve Aaker’ın “Algılanan Kalite” modelleri kullanılarak anket oluşturulmuştur. Uluşabilirlik örneklemi yöntemi kullanılarak, gönüllü 434 kişiden veri toplanmıştır. Data SPSS 21.0 ile analiz edilmiş ve ortaya atılan ilişki regresyon analizi ile test edilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki itibar katsayısı ile algılanan kalite arasında pozitif yönlü anlamı bir ilişki olduğu görülmüş ve. yüksek kalite algısı yüksek itibar algısı için gerek şartken, HTC örneğinde görüldüğü gibi yüksek itibar algısı için yeterli değildir. 


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between consumers’ brand reputation perception and perceived quality in Turkey’s mobile communication sector, highlighting the reputation of four brands: LG, Samsung, iPhone and HTC. It is commonly accepted that the information era in which we live underscores the importance of perceived brand reputation management. If brand reputation isn’t perceived as high, the product becomes worthless in an economic sense no matter how high the product quality is. According to Aaker (2009), if a company loses its reputation, neither money nor other resources can bring it back to life (p. 105). The corporation must maintain a good impression before all its stakeholders to increase profitability, continually widening its customer portfolio, to survive and sustain itself in the market. This “good impression” is the essence of reputation. Reputation is a cumulative total perception, which exist as a result of aggregate experiences of stakeholders, along with identifying features from the past about an institution in question (Alessandri, Un Yang & Kinsey, 2006, p. 14; Fombrun, 1996, p. 57; GainesRoss, 2008, p. 6; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001, pp. 25-27; Green, 1996, p. 21; Markwick & Fill, 1997, p. 398). Within the context of corporate reputation research, a firm’s brand reputation concept is a specific area of interest. According to Corkindale and Belder (2009), brand only has a significant relationship for firm’s customers rather than for all stakeholders (p. 242). Consequently, while reputation is essential for success, it alone is not sufficient, because institutions need strong brands to achieve. “The major point is that brand reputation is not necessarily limited only to a local product or service. In services and business-to-business industries, brand appears to be more often connected to the reputation of the company rather than individual products or services” (Selnes, 1993, p. 20). High brand reputation is similar to a promise given to stakeholders. Customers expect to receive good products, and good customer service after purchasing them, along with a responsible, well-organized and wellmanaged institution that takes seriously its responsibility both to its workers and the environment. Therefore, within this study, the dependent variable to be analysed is brand reputation. 

Conceptually, quality varies according to subjective preferences of individuals. Indeed, the very concept of quality differs widely within the framework of individual perceptions. According to some scholars, quality can be analysed as either real or perceived quality. Real quality is objective whereas perceived quality is related to the image perceived by customers. In some studies literature, quality is classified as both real and perceived, where quality is regarded as objective and perceived quality is something else. Real quality is essential for client satisfaction. Nevertheless it is not sustainable unless it is also accompanied by perceived quality. Perceived quality differs from customer to customer and, as a result, products with perceived quality can command a higher price. Other customers consider appearance, configuration, fashion ability, durability, ergonomic design, and materials used to make the products as being indicative good quality although many customers automatically assume certain brands are recognized by good quality. According to Zeithalml (1988), objective quality can be proved by means of certain standards and sizes (pp. 3-4). However measuring perceived quality is difficult because it is subjective and is thus defined as a relative concept, given that it depends on the rate of customer attributions for the product in question. 

Within the context of this literature, consumers’ brand reputation perception and the associated relationship of perceived quality will be studied. The research population is composed of Turkish citizens that use mobile phones. A convenience sampling method was used to collect the data. To be able to increase the representativeness of the sample, participants from different socio-cultural and socio-economic backgrounds were chosen. Data were collected from the customers of the companies in mobile communications sector in Istanbul, where 434 customers’ answers were gathered. To measure the brand reputation quotient dimension, Fombrun’s (2000), “Reputation Quotient Questionnaire” was used (p. 253). In total there were twenty items in the scale used; four questions to measure products and services; three to measure visionary leadership; three to measure workplace environment; four to measure financial performance; three to measure corporate social responsibility, and three to measure emotional appeal. Turkish language adaptation of the scale was done by Dayanç Kıyat in 2012. The “Model of Quality Perception” developed by Aaker (2009), was used to assess quality perception and to investigate other aspects of the subject matter in seven dimensions (p. 112). Based on the literature and this model, a modified scale was developed by the author. In total, fourteen items were created for the scale; two to measure performance, two to measure features, two to measure conformity, two to measure reliability, two to measure durability, two to measure serviceability, and two to measure fit and finish. 

To test the relationship between perceived quality and brand reputation, statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21. The results showed a positive relationship between perceived quality and reputation perception. That is to say, the rate of reputation perception for a brand increases in direct proportion to perceived quality. Similar results were found in the literature of analogous surveys, even though they were inadequate to examine the relationship between perceived quality and reputation quotient were not adequate (Caruana & Ewing, 2010, pp. 1103-1107; Gatti, Caruana, & Snehota, 2012 pp. 65-71). That is, the relationship between perceived quality and reputation quotient obtained during this survey parallels the findings of prior studies. 


PDF View

References

  • Aaker, D. A. (2009). Marka değeri yönetimi [Management of brand value] (E. Orfanlı, Trans.) İstanbul: MediaCat Alessandri, S. W., Un Yang S., & Kinsey D. (2006). An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation. google scholar
  • 9.International Public Relations Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 12-24). Miami, FL: Marcia Watson DiStaso University of Miami. google scholar
  • Apple hesapları hack’lendi: On binlerce iPhone kullanıcısının bilgileri tehlikede. (2015, September 1). Retrieved from http://www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/apple-hesaplari-hacklendi-on-binlerce-iphone-kullanicisininbilgileri-tehlikede,-nxtdKHD0Ey7g2iYNWYBtA Bartikowski B., Walsh G. & Beatty S. E. (2011). Culture and age as moderators in the corporate reputation and loyalty relationship. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 966, 972. google scholar
  • Cabral, L.M.B. (2000). Stretching firm and brand reputation. RAND Journal of Economic, 31(4), 658-673. google scholar
  • Carmeli, A. & Tishler, A. (2004). The relationships between ıntangıble organızational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1257-1278. google scholar
  • Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. google scholar
  • Caruana, A., & Ewing, T. M. (2010). How corporate reputation, quality and value influence online loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1103-1110. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.030 Chen, C.N. & Ting, S.C. (2002). A study using the grey system theory to evaluate the importance of various service quality factors, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(7), 838-861. google scholar
  • Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109. google scholar
  • Corkindale, D. & Belder M. (2009). Corporate brand reputation and the adoption of innovations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 242–250. google scholar
  • Çevre Raporları. (2017. April 10) Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/tr/environment/reports/ Darsono, L. I. & Junaedi, C. M. (2006). An examination of perceived quality, satisfaction and loyalyt relationship. Gadjah Mada Internatioanal Journal of Business, 8(3), 323-342. google scholar
  • Davis G. & Miles L. (1998). Reputation management: Theory versus practice. Corporate Reputation Review, 21, 16-27. google scholar
  • Davis G., Chun R., Silva R. V. da & Roper S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitivesness. London: Routledge. google scholar
  • Dayanç Kıyat, B. & Sütçü C. S. (2012). Research on the measuring the reputation perception of health sector on social media. Proceedings of the International Reputation Management Conference, Kadir Has University – Reputation Management Institutes 17-19 October. (pp.19-28). Ankara:Pozitif. google scholar
  • Dayanç Kıyat, G.B. (2014). The key of reputation. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing. google scholar
  • Dayanç Kıyat, G.B. & Çalışkan, S.C. (2012). How much cultural assumptions matter in “corporate reputation dimensions” of the firms: A study from Turkish telecommunication industry. Mediterrenean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(5), 75-89. google scholar
  • Flatt, S. J. & Kowalczyk, S. J. (2008). Creating competitive advantage through intangible assets: The direct and indirect effects of corporate culture and reputation. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 16(1), 13-30. google scholar
  • Fombrun, C. J. & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258. google scholar
  • Fombrun, C. J & Van Riel C.B.M. (2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies reputations. New York: Financial Times. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. google scholar
  • Fombrun, C. J. Gardberg, N. A. & Sever, J.M. (2000). The reputation quotient: a multi – stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255. google scholar
  • Gaines-Ross, L. (2008).Corporate reputation: 12 steps to safeguarding and recovering reputation. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. google scholar
  • Gatti, L. Caruana, A. & Snehota I. (2012). The role of corporate social responsibility, perceived quality and corporate reputation on purchase intention: Implications for brand management. Journal of Brand Management, 20(1), 65-76. google scholar
  • Gotsi, M. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition, corporate communications. An International Journal, 6(1), 24-30. google scholar
  • Green, P. S. (1996). Şirket ününü korumanın yolları, (Abdullah Ersoy Trans.). Istanbul: AD Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Güllülü, U. & Bilgili, B. (2011). Satış sonrası hizmetlerde kalite algısı ve müşteri memnuniyeti ilişkisi. Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırması Journal, 7, 23-41. google scholar
  • Güney, S. (2009). Sosyal Psikoloji. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Publishing. google scholar
  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 135-144. google scholar
  • İşte Apple’ın kırmızısı I-phone’u. (2017, April 10) Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:13BcPiFpdfUJ:www.hurriyet.com.tr/iste-applein-kipkirmizi-iphoneu-40402680+&cd=3&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr Jurisic, B., & Azevedo A. (2011). Building customer – brand relationships in the mobile communications market: The role of brand tribalism and brand reputation. Brand Management, 18(4/5), 349–366. google scholar
  • Kowalczyk, S. J., & Pawlish, M. J. (2002) Corporate branding through external perception of organizational culture. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 159-174. google scholar
  • Lewellyn, P. G. (2002). Corporate reputation. Business Society, 41(4), 446-455. google scholar
  • Markwick, N., & Fill, C. (1997). Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 396-409. google scholar
  • Okay, A., & Okay, A. (2007). Halkla ilişkiler kavram stratejileri ve uygulamaları. (3.rd. ed,) İstanbul: Der Publishing. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quailty: Implications for further research. Joumal of Marketing, 58, 111-124. google scholar
  • Ruyter, K. D., & Wetzels, M. (1998). Linking perceived service quality and services loyalty: A multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12), 1082-1106. google scholar
  • Schnietz, K., & Epstein, M. (2005). Exploring the financial value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility during a crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 327-345. google scholar
  • Sekaran, U. (1992). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. UK: JohnWilley and Sons. Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. google scholar
  • European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), 19-35. google scholar
  • Topuz, Y. V., & Çambaşı, İ. (2014). Asgari ücretli tüketicilerin fiyat ve fiyat – kalite algısı: Cep telefonu ürünleri üzerine bir araştırma, Niğde Üniversitesi İBBF Journal, 7(1), 315-327. google scholar
  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Dayanç Kıyat, G. (0001). The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(53), 31-64. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587


AMA

Dayanç Kıyat G. The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. 0001;0(53):31-64. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587


ABNT

Dayanç Kıyat, G. The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 53, p. 31-64, 0001.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Dayanç Kıyat, Gül Banu,. 0001. “The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 53: 31-64. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587


Chicago: Humanities Style

Dayanç Kıyat, Gül Banu,. The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 53 (Nov. 2024): 31-64. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587


Harvard: Australian Style

Dayanç Kıyat, G 0001, 'The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector', Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 53, pp. 31-64, viewed 25 Nov. 2024, https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Dayanç Kıyat, G. (0001) ‘The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector’, Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(53), pp. 31-64. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587 (25 Nov. 2024).


MLA

Dayanç Kıyat, Gül Banu,. The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 53, 0001, pp. 31-64. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587


Vancouver

Dayanç Kıyat G. The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences [Internet]. 25 Nov. 2024 [cited 25 Nov. 2024];0(53):31-64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587 doi: 10.17064/iuifd.372587


ISNAD

Dayanç Kıyat, Gül Banu. The Relationship Between Reputation Quotient and Perceived Quality of Brands in Turkey’s Mobile Communication Sector”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0/53 (Nov. 2024): 31-64. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.372587



TIMELINE


Submitted30.09.2016
Accepted18.06.2017

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.