International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 12 (December 2024), Pages: 155-161

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Impact of perceived price, appearance, and brand attachment on future purchase intentions: A case study of OTOP and SME products in Thailand

 Author(s): 

 Chutikarn Sriviboon, Atidtaya Bousri *, Watsamon Santaweesuk

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Innovation and Management, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4575-3878

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.12.017

 Abstract

This study investigates the impact of perceived price, perceived appearance, and brand attachment on future purchase intentions for One Tambon One Product (OTOP) and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) products. This study investigates the integration of cultural identity into creative product development, using Water Hyacinth as a central theme, under the slogan "Do Less, Get More." It employs a quantitative research approach to explore how cultural identity can be a source of innovation and differentiation in product design. Data were collected via questionnaires from 335 customers in Phayao Province and analyzed using a multilevel structural equation model. The results indicate that perceived price, appearance, and brand attachment significantly influence purchase intentions, supported by strong model fit indices (e.g., χ² = 313.909, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06). These findings underscore the importance of these factors in shaping consumer behavior and offer insights for culturally driven product development and marketing strategies.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Perceived price, Brand attachment, Purchase intentions, Cultural identity, Product development

 Article history

 Received 16 July 2024, Received in revised form 12 November 2024, Accepted 22 November 2024

 Acknowledgment

This paper is part of a research project from the NRCT Fund. Special thanks to the participants of this study for their cooperation and willingness to share their experiences, which were crucial to the success of this research. Their insights provided valuable empirical evidence and added depth to our analysis.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University Ethics Committee (COE: 2-157/2020). Participants provided informed consent, and their confidentiality and data privacy were strictly maintained throughout the research process.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Sriviboon C, Bousri A, and Santaweesuk W (2024). Impact of perceived price, appearance, and brand attachment on future purchase intentions: A case study of OTOP and SME products in Thailand. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(12): 155-161

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2

----------------------------------------------   

 References (30)

  1. Akbari M, Rezvani A, Shahriari E, Zúñiga MÁ, and Pouladian H (2020). Acceptance of 5 G technology: Mediation role of trust and concentration. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 57: 101585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101585   [Google Scholar]
  2. Belaid S and Temessek Behi A (2011). The role of attachment in building consumer‐brand relationships: an empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(1): 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421111108003   [Google Scholar]
  3. Belch GE and Belch MA (2018). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective. McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bocken NM, Short SW, Rana P, and Evans S (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65: 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039   [Google Scholar]
  5. Byrne BM (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. 3rd Edition, Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421   [Google Scholar]
  6. Chouichom S (2021). Readiness of entrepreneurs towards group performance development of OTOP product: A case study in Northeastern Thailand. In: Behnassi M, Barjees Baig M, El Haiba M, and Reed MR (Eds.), Emerging challenges to food production and security in Asia, Middle East, and Africa: 317-328. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72987-5_13   [Google Scholar]
  7. Creusen ME and Schoormans JP (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22: 63-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.x   [Google Scholar]
  8. Decker R and Trusov M (2010). Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4): 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.09.001   [Google Scholar]
  9. Dhagarra D, Goswami M, and Kumar G (2020). Impact of trust and privacy concerns on technology acceptance in healthcare: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 141: 104164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104164   [Google Scholar] PMid:32593847 PMCid:PMC7212948
  10. Gentile C, Spiller N, and Noci G (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. European Management Journal, 25(5): 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.08.005   [Google Scholar]
  11. Gundona I, Yamoah FA, and Haq IU (2023). Assessing the impact of customer engagement on brand performance: The mediating role of customer-based brand equity (CBBE). In: Yamoah FA and Haque AU (Eds.), Corporate management ecosystem in emerging economies: 403-423. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41578-4_21   [Google Scholar]
  12. Hidthiir MH, Ahmad Z, Junoh MZ, and Yusof MF (2024). Dynamics of economic growth in ASEAN-5 countries: A panel ARDL approach. Discover Sustainability, 5: 145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00351-x   [Google Scholar]
  13. Huddiniah E and Er M (2019). Product variety, supply chain complexity and the needs for information technology: A framework based on literature review. Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4): 245-255. https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0390247   [Google Scholar]
  14. Hultén B (2017). Sensory marketing: Theoretical and empirical grounds. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Ilker E, Kocaturk M, Kadıroglu A, Yıldırım A, Ozturk G, Yıldız H, and Koken I (2018). Adaptation abilities and quality parameters of selected soybean lines under double cropping in the Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 23(1): 49-55. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.421584   [Google Scholar]
  16. Kalayou MH, Endehabtu BF, and Tilahun B (2020). The applicability of the modified technology acceptance model (TAM) on the sustainable adoption of eHealth systems in resource-limited settings. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 13: 1827-1837. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S284973   [Google Scholar] PMid:33299320 PMCid:PMC7721313
  17. Keller KL (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 3rd Edition, Pearson, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Kwadade-Cudjoe F (2020). Leadership of change: Examination of transactional, transformational and charismatic leadership, and evaluation of the concept of charismatic leadership in the current information-driven business environment. Archives of Business Research, 8(8): 294-305. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.88.8909   [Google Scholar]
  19. Lipsman A, Mudd G, Rich M, and Bruich S (2012). The power of “like”: How brands reach (and influence) fans through social-media marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1): 40-52. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-52-1-040-052   [Google Scholar]
  20. MacInnis DJ and Folkes VS (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3): 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003   [Google Scholar]
  21. Mkhonto M and Zuva T (2024). Technology acceptance: A critical review of technology adoption theories and models. In: Silhavy R and Silhavy P (Eds.), Software engineering methods in systems and network systems. CoMeSySo 2023. Lecture notes in networks and systems, 934: 414-428. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54813-0_38   [Google Scholar]
  22. Nugent M (2003). Aboriginal family history: Some reflections. Australian Cultural History: The Journal of the History of Culture in Australia, 22: 143-154.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Nunnally JC (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  24. Park CW, Eisingerich AB, and Park JW (2013). Attachment–aversion (AA) model of customer–brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23: 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.01.002   [Google Scholar]
  25. Park CW, MacInnis DJ, Priester J, Eisingerich AB, and Iacobucci D (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1   [Google Scholar]
  26. Schmitt B (2011). Experience marketing: Concepts, frameworks and consumer insights. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, 5(2): 55-112. https://doi.org/10.1561/1700000027   [Google Scholar]
  27. Srivastava P, Ramakanth D, Akhila K, and Gaikwad KK (2022). Package design as a branding tool in the cosmetic industry: Consumers’ perception vs. reality. SN Business and Economics, 2: 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-022-00222-5   [Google Scholar] PMid:35615336 PMCid:PMC9123395
  28. Suphan W and Pirabun N (2024). The factors influencing consumers’ decisions to purchase OTOP products through e-marketplaces in Chiang Mai. In: Kreinovich V, Yamaka W, and Leurcharusmee S (Eds.), Applications of optimal transport to economics and related topics. Studies in systems, decision and control, 556: 671-682. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67770-0_46   [Google Scholar]
  29. Usunier JC and Lee J (2013). Marketing across cultures. 7th Edition, Pearson, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Wojcik S and Hughes A (2019). Sizing up Twitter users. PEW Research Center, 24: 1-23.   [Google Scholar]