The country-of-origin effect on consumers’ perceived product authenticity : the wine industry

(1)

THE COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN EFFECT ON CONSUMERS’ PERCEIVED

PRODUCT AUTHENTICITY

- The Wine Industry -

JENNIFER STIZZOLI Student Number: 10828494 Master Thesis

MSc Business Administration

Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries Track Supervised by Dr. J.J. Ebbers

Final version, word count: 19,290 31st_{August, 2015}

(2)

2

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Jennifer Stizzoli, who declares

to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is

original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text

and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for

the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

Table of

Introduction

“Authenticity: If you can fake that, the rest will take care of itself”.

Seth Godwin, 2005

Do-it-yourself wine-making kits are the latest threat to consumers’ perceived authenticity of

excellence wines, in particular those carrying the label of Old World wine producing countries. These

kits promise a high quality bottle of your favorite grape variety’s wine, made on your own in 6 weeks

time and starting from grape juice or powdered concentrate.

The negative consequences on exports for the “Made in Italy” label, due to the counterfeiting

of Italy’s products of excellence for instance, have been estimated to be higher than 60 billion. In

order to solve this problem, Coldiretti – i.e., the Federation of Italian Farmers - proposes to improve

the control and the transparency of the information present on the labels about foods’ real origin

(Coldiretti-Eurispes: in crescita le agromafie nel 2014. Rischio effetto boomergang da Expo, 2015).

This current issue is meant to present a first insight into the importance of the country of origin

on a product’s label. While some decades ago a consumer blindly trusted a product’s authenticity, the increasing number of counterfeits and imitations are fostering consumers’ attention towards the countries from which products originate.

In particular, the country of origin is expected to be highly important for experiential goods,

due to the difficulty to source information about the quality, and of identity goods, because those

items are luxury goods whose authenticity explains a large part of the price premium. France, for

instance, has experienced a dramatic drop in the consumption of wine in the last fifty years. This

decrease in wine consumption is in great part due to young people, for whom wine evolved from

simply being an “aliment” to being a “pleasure”. Those consumers highly value authenticity, because the wine becomes an identity good, a self-extended products they can please their guest with (Lunardo

(7)

7

The aim of this study is to address the gap between the country-of-origin effect and

authenticity literature. The empirical study employs differently manipulated wine labels in order to

test the influence of a product’s county of origin on consumers’ perceived authenticity.

First, the literature review will address the definition of authenticity and the cues consumers

employ to evaluate it. Then, the way by which the country of origin of a product has an effect on

product evaluation, and how it influences the relevance of other product attributes taken into

consideration are presented. The general picture will gradually restrict its focus on the wine industry,

which is the empirical setting of this study. Once the research question is given and the hypotheses

discussed, the “Methodology and Results” section will summarize the experiment and test the results.

In conclusion, a discussion about the theoretical and practical implications will highlight the

contributions of this research to scientific knowledge and a recap will review the core findings of this

(8)

8

Literature review

The literature review section of this paper mainly focuses on two concepts worth to be more

precisely explored: authenticity and country-of-origin effect. In the first part, the general concept

behind the term authenticity is defined and how perceived authenticity is generated in consumers’

minds is explained. Since consumers evaluate authenticity based on different purposes, a

classification of the multiple forms of authenticity are presented. Finally, the attributes that people

take into consideration when evaluating whether a product is authentic or not are given.

In the second part, instead, the literature reviews the definition of country of origin (COO)

and its effects on a product’s evaluation. Lastly, the link between country-of-origin and authenticity is presented in more detail. This link builds the basis for the research gap by recalling the attributes

of perceived authenticity that are directly and indirectly related to the country-of-origin. In the next

section, the hypotheses are presented and justified.

Definition of authenticity

The term authentic is far more used than explicitly defined. This is due to the fact that it

implies different meanings depending on the context (Beverland, 2005; Beverland & Farrelly, 2010;

Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

Genuineness, reality and truth are the most common terms adopted in the definition (Bendix

1992, p. 104; Beverland, 2005 p. 1008; Beverland & Farrelly, 2010, p. 839; Grayson & Martinec, 2004, p. 297; Grundlach & Neville, 2012, p. 485; Kennick 1985, p. 4; Napoli et Al., 2014, p. 1091).

However, the meaning of genuine and true could be perceived differently by consumers. For instance,

some may consider a meal truly Mexican when it is made and consumed by Mexicans, while others

may assess the meal’s authenticity on whether it respects the recipe and the ingredients (Salamone,

(9)

9

Furthermore, authenticity is employed to describe an object that is original and reflects its

real essence (Bendix, 1992, p. 104; Bruner, 1994, p. 400; Cohen, 1988, p. 375; Grayson and Martinec,

2004; Lunardo & Guerinet, 2007, p. 71). Therefore, copies or imitations (Kennick, 1985, p. 4;

Grundlach & Neville, 2012, p. 485; Bruner, 1994, p. 400; Grayson & Martinec, 2004) meeting social

conventions for commercial reasons (Beverland et Al., 2008; Cohen, 1988; Grayson and Martinec,

2004; Grundlach & Neville, 2012), are excluded from being authentic. In fact, the object’s origin has

to be verifiable: it has its own identity and history (Napoli et Al., 2014; Grundlach & Neville, 2012,

p. 485), and presents unbroken commitments to tradition and place of origin (Beverland et Al., 2008;

Grundlach & Neville, 2012).

The definitions employing terms such as natural, honest and simple (Napoli et Al., 2014;

Grundlach & Neville, 2012) are in line with, and further sustain, these considerations.

Processes of authenticity

Although its importance in the field of marketing and brand management, due to its

complexity, previous research has not come to a unique definition of authenticity.

On the one hand, some authors sustain the idea that authenticity is an inherent quality of a

product, person or performance, where authentic objects are consistent with history, quality or art

(Beverland, 2005; Beverland et Al., 2008). A practical example could be a person, who ages without

recurring to any plastic surgery “correcting” actions.

On the other hand, authenticity is imparted to an object by marketers and consumers

(Beverland, 2005; Bruner, 1994; Chhabra, 2005; Peterson, 2005; Brown et Al., 2003). That is,

authenticity is a social constructed concept (Beverland, 2005; Bruner, 1994; Cohen, 1988; Grayson

& Martinec, 2004; Grundlach & Neville, 2012; Peterson, 2005), because multiple persons, holding

different meanings, are involved into the authenticity evaluation process. As such, authenticity is the

(10)

10

particular context (Cohen, 1988; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Peterson, 2005). After being accepted

or rejected by relevant others - e.g., the majority of consumers - (Peterson, 2005), this evaluation is

established in consumers’ mind (Cohen, 1988; Peterson, 2005). In the 1860s, for example, some

producers in the wine industry attributed the discovery of Champagne to Dom Perignon. By the early

20th century, this myth gained enough credibility to become an established and well-known fact

(Beverland, 2005). In the same way, people taking part to a guided field trip could perceive the guide’s

self-assured behavior as authentic - a reflection of actual confidence in leading -, or inauthentic - an

artificial claim to be confident (Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

As this process is ideologically or randomly driven, due to its strictly subjective nature,

consumers and marketers not only perceive authenticity differently, but are also likely to evolve their

meaning over time (Beverland et Al., 2008; Beverland, 2005; Grundlach & Neville, 2012; Peterson,

2005). Therefore, it is suggested to analyze perceived authenticity in each specific consumption field

(Bruner, 1994; Beverland et Al., 2010) and from both sides of the transaction (Grundlach & Neville,

2012).

Some researchers believe that marketers, by combining diverse sources, create rich brand

meanings and communicate authenticity to consumers in a wide range of product categories

(Beverland, 2005; Chhabra, 2005; Grundlach & Neville, 2012; Peterson, 2005). In the luxury wine

industry, for instance, traditional wine-making methods are advertised to draw the attention from the

new industrial processes introduced to produce better wine in larger quantity and sell it at a lower

price (Beverland, 2005).However, while some image aspects reflect the truth, authenticity claims by

marketers are often contrived rather than real (Brown et Al., 2003; Peterson, 2005; Beverland, 2006).

In many cases, firms strategically portray themselves as small craft producers, who employ natural

ingredients and traditional production methods in order to differentiate themselves from competitors

(Beverland, 2005; Peterson, 2005). In tourism and beer marketing, for instance, promoters created

the idea of “authentic Ireland” to recreate something perceived as “traditional” (Graham, 2001;

(11)

11

Walt Disney’s managers, while the official ‘N SYNC pop band’s website told the story of a group of boys who acted on their own volition (Peterson, 2005). In summary, in a variety of industries, firms

actively cultivate myths to convey product’s authenticity to consumers’ mind (Beverland, 2005;

Peterson, 2005).

However, because the purpose of this study is to examine consumers’ evaluations of market

offerings - “any product, service, or marketplace experience evaluated by a consumer” (Grayson and

Martinec, 2004, p. 297) -, the focus is on consumer-based perceived authenticity definitions. Indeed,

authenticity is not created “by the experts but by the end consumers” (Peterson, 2005, p. 1091) and “what is perceived as authentic must conform to consumers’ mental frames of how things “ought to be”” (Beverland, 2006, p. 251). Yet, personal preferences and perceptual boundaries strongly influence consumers’ perceptions of external signals. For example, Holt (1998) found that

authenticity is influenced by cultural heritage, as consumers with different levels of cultural capital

search for different cues to assess authenticity. For low cultural capital consumers, for instance,

perceived authenticity is strictly connected to attributes that affirm tradition such as time and place

(Peterson & Anand, 2004; Beverland, 2005).

So far, it is clear that evaluating authenticity depends on the object, which has to be evaluated,

and the stakeholders, who assess their perceptions: there are no purely objective criteria for deciding

whether a market offering is authentic, neither all will be judged as authentic by a particular consumer,

because it is strictly related to personal experiences (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). In addition, external

dynamic factors such as place, cultural identity and history, further influence a consumer evaluating

the value placed on a market offering (Grundlach & Neville, 2012). Therefore, brand managers create

messages that resonate among consumers (Beverland et Al., 2008; Grundlach & Neville, 2012) by

focusing on consumers’ assessments and frames of reference in purchase decisions (Chhabra, 2005;

(12)

12 Classifications of authenticity

Since authenticity is a social constructed concept, due to the subjective nature of the process,

evaluating whether a market offering is authentic is strictly dependent on the personal perceptions of

the consumer. As a result, different forms of authenticity are encountered in the literature (Brown et

Al., 2003; Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

Grayson and Martinec (2004) classify authenticity into two categories: indexical and iconic

authenticity. However, Beverland et Al. (2008) in their study about authenticity and advertising in

the beer industry suggest a different classification, consisting of three forms of authenticity: pure

(literal), approximate, and moral. They claim that, under all three forms, consumers rely on either

indexical or iconic attributes.

Indexical authenticity distinguishes an actual authentic item from its copies or reproductions

(Kingston, 1999; Grayson & Martinec, 2004). To determine the indexical authenticity of an object,

consumers search some additional information – indexes –, namely attributes that link the performers

- e.g., dancers - to the market offer - e.g., cultural dance performance - by a clear factual and

spatio-temporal link (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). This link can be physical - e.g., link between a singer and

his most popular track - or psychic - e.g., link between the field trip guide and his behavior - and

helps consumers to distinguish, for instance, dancers who are truly manifesting their cultural identity

from those performing a sequence of steps unrelated to their heritage (Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

This is due to the fact that indexes “provide a verifiable link between the product and past traditions, including commitment to historic product styles, ingredients, production methods, and place of

production” (Beverland et Al., 2008, p. 8).

Consumers rely on those indexical cues and other objective information when looking for

pure (literal) authenticity of an object. This first form of authenticity is defined in terms of unbroken

commitments to historical traditions and place of origin. As those consumers want to have control

(13)

13

category, successful advertising should focus on brand attributes (Beverland et Al., 2008), the

“descriptive features that characterize a product or service” (Keller, 1993, p. 4).

Alternatively, iconic authenticity describes an “authentic reproduction” (Bruner, 1994, p. 399;

Grayson & Martinec, 2004), “something that is perceived to be similar to something” (Grayson &

Martinec, 2004, p. 298) that is indexically authentic.In order to be perceived as iconically authentic,

an object has to be a copy or imitation of, or simply resemble (Grayson & Martinec, 2004, Grundlach

& Neville, 2012) something which perceivers have preexisting knowledge or expectations of in their

minds. Consumers, then, compare the item with what they sense having common traits and assess the

similarity. For example, to assess whether a cultural dance performance is iconically authentic, the

consumer should have at least some knowledge of how dances from that particular culture tend to

look and sound like (Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

Approximate authenticity relies on abstract iconic cues that combined create a sincere

authenticimpression (Beverland et Al., 2008). In this case, consumers perceive an object as authentic

when it fits their mental idea of how it “ought to be” (Grayson & Martinec 2004; Beverland et Al.,

2008). Consequently, they rely on the symbolic or abstract perceptions of lived tradition

communicated by marketers and accept changes in production practices as long as they do not

undermine the brand’s essence and historic traditions evolve to meet modern standards (Beverland et Al., 2008). An example could be the Volkswagen’s New Beetle (Beverland, 2005). In addition,

consumers seeking approximate authenticity aim also for self-authentication. That is, these

consumers choose products connecting them with time, place and cultural traditions they perceive as

crucial parts of their identity (Beverland et Al., 2008). Therefore, advertisements should emphasize

brand benefits, “the personal value that consumers attach to the product or service attributes” (Keller,

1993, p. 4), in order to create an emotional impression that the brand is from the past (Beverland et

Al., 2008). A British coffee and tea retailer, for instance, can emphasize the authenticity of its

(14)

14

The concept of moral authenticity, instead, is similar to approximate authenticity by the fact

that they both reflect consumers’ consumption preferences, rather than being purely

context-dependent, as pure authenticity. In contrast, however, history or connection to time and place are

relatively meaningless to consumers looking for moral authenticity. Those consumers desire a

product created by a passionate manufacturer motivated by love of craft, rather than an impersonal

mass-produced product made exclusively for financial purposes. Since consumers choose brands that

reflect their personal moral values, they stress the importance of the human act and not of the history

as such. Thus, by leveraging mostly on iconic cues, effective advertising should convey a sincereor

emotional impression that the brand is committed to traditional moral practices (Beverland et Al.,

2008). Furthermore, the definition of moral authenticity is in line with Peterson’s (2005) authenticity

through status identity. In this study, Peterson recalls the concept of identity art (Fine, 2003). That is,

the value of the product is rather based on the author’s authenticity, than on the product’s intrinsic

qualities.

Cues to evaluate authenticity

So far, the definition behind the term authenticity has been analyzed. Yet, it has been agreed

upon authenticity being a social constructed concept, which takes different forms based on

consumers’ purpose and marketing strategies adopted by producers together with vendors.

Since this study is about how authentic a product is perceived by consumers, it is crucial to

analyze what elements are taken into consideration by consumers from different empirical settings to

assess product’s authenticity. In fact, consumers tend to perceive authenticity differently, because they rely on their own interests and knowledge (Napoli et Al., 2014). Consequently, academic

literature discloses multiple frameworks (Napoli et Al., 2014; Beverland et Al., 2008; Grayson &

(15)

15

In this section, the results of three main articles are merged (Table 1). First, since the empirical

setting of this study is the wine industry, Beverland’s (2006) six attributes of authenticity in the ultra-luxury wine industry are taken into consideration. However, in order to test the hypotheses on the

largest generalizable basis for identity goods, the wine labels created for this study’s experiment are

neither branded, nor luxurious. Thus, to compensate for the results’ lack of generalizability, six major

criteria that tourists employ to judge souvenirs’ authenticity are added (Littrell et Al., 1993).

Furthermore, a recent article proposes an alternative framework applied to the beer industry

(Grundlach & Neville, 2012), suggesting that the beer market offers a better conceptual model of how

the factors may interact to affect authenticity. Indeed, on the one hand, beer is less expensive,

mass-produced – standardized - and mass-distributed - both across geographic regions and over time - with

respect to ultra-premium wine, on the other hand, weavings, quilts, pottery and wood carvings in

Littrell et Al. (1993) provide a useful context for exploring authenticity but are not fast-moving

consumer goods or branded items (Grundlach & Neville, 2012).

Beverland (2006) Grundlach et Al. (2012) Littrell et Al. (1993) Peterson (2005)

Heritage and Pedigree

Heritage and Pedigree Cultural and Historic Integrity

Relationship to Place Relationship to Place Ethnic/Cultural

Identity Method of

Production

Method of Production

Ingredients and Materials Craftperson and Materials

Company/Craftsperson

Quality Commitments Commitments to Consistency and Quality

Stylistic Consistency

Downplaying Commercial Motives

Genuineness and Prioritizing Craft Motives

Workmanship

Shopping Experience and Genuineness

Experience Authentic Experience

Esthetics Aesthetics, Function and

Uses

Uniqueness and Originality Uniqueness and

Originality

Exclusivity

(16)

16

By focusing on the producers, one of the most important product attributes named by

consumers when assessing authenticity is what both Beverland (2006) and Grundlach and Neville

(2012) call Heritage and Pedigree. An established producer’s heritage indicates product reliability,

because it guarantees a consistent high quality level. However, the producer constantly has to renew

this value through commitments to quality. Once a producer collects a history of high quality

production, for example, when some older wineries demonstrate a past of high performance, the brand

achieves a recognized pedigree status, which in turn leads to competitive advantage over younger

wineries and a strong brand value. Two are the main consequences for the product instead: price

premium and higher expectation of performance (Beverland, 2006). This is due to the fact that,

consumers associate authenticity with history, tradition an established position in the market

(Grundlach & Neville, 2012). Littrell et Al. (1993) also remark the importance of history as a

component of authenticity in Cultural and Historic Integrity. In their consumer-based study about

souvenirs’ authenticity, consumers appreciate items made of the same materials and with the same style and design that were used in the past.

However, some consumers want to experience an affective relationship with the product by

knowing the cultural background of the region where it comes from: they want to know the “story

behind it” (Littrell et Al. 1993; p. 205). That is, Cultural and historic integrity (Littrell et Al., 1993) includes what both Beverland (2006) and Grundlach and Neville (2012) define as Relationship to

Place. In fact, the majority of tourists in the study do not associate authenticity with crafts whose

labels state “made in ...” and show “special irritation for crafts imported from Canada, China, Hong

Kong, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Singapore” (Littrell et Al., 1993; p. 205).

In this study, Relationship to Place is the most important cue to evaluate authenticity. When

a product is associated with its country of origin - i.e. the country in which the company makes the

product or provides the service – producers leverage a secondary association. A secondary association

is an association “linked to other information in memory that is not directly related to the product or

(17)

17

with the country of origin and transfer primary - direct - attribute associations related to the country

of origin - e.g. expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness - to the product (Keller, 1993; Grundlach

and Neville, 2012; Hong and Wyer, 1989). Multiple industries benefit from Relationship to place

inferences: French wines, Japanese electronics, German beer and automobiles (Keller, 1993). By

making a distinction between country of manufacture and country of origin, for instance, consumers

who believed country of origin is important to authenticity feel that brewing a beer in a different

country decreases its authenticity (Grundlach and Neville, 2012). That is, the country of origin adds

value to the product because it decreases the consumer’s perceived purchasing risk. For example, “simple links between a place and generic types of wine such as Margaret River for Cabernet or Shiraz” “reduce the risk of purchasing a wine because it is from a place that has an established track record for a wine style” (Beverland, 2006, p. 255). Similarly, beer lovers pay attention to locations

carrying an historical high quality reputation - e.g. Holland, Belgium and Germany - (Grundlach and

Neville, 2012). However, the impact of this attribute on perceived authenticity is different from

consumer to consumer based on their level of expertise about the product category. While experts

understand the critical role of the artist in creating a high quality wine that remains a unique

expression of that place, less expert consumers make generic judgments about links between place,

wine style, and overall quality - e.g. New Zealand for white wines - (Beverland, 2006). Moreover,

the ability to communicate authenticity through Ethnic/Cultural Identity is also underlined in Peterson

(2005). This is crucial, when evaluating a person’s authenticity. In the music industry, for example,

the audience pretended their artists to be ascribed group members of their community, movement or

ethnicity - e.g. punk music in the 1980s, blues music and contemporary rap music - to have the right

to represent the group. Ethnic/Cultural Identity is also relevant when assessing the authenticity of a

service, as in the case of the ethnic appearance and role performance of cooks and waiters in ethnic

restaurants (Peterson, 2005).

Further stressing the role of the producer, both Grundlach and Neville (2012) and Beverland

(18)

18

authenticity by providing a link between the final result and the creative process (Beverland, 2006).

Indeed, for some consumers craft and attention to detail signal a product created by the work of an

artisan or a specialist, rather than a mass-produced good. For instance, producing a batch of German

beer takes minimum 6 weeks, while some Australian brewers run a batch in 4 hours (Grundlach and

Neville, 2012). Therefore, consumers often recognize a higher price as an indicator or consequence

of better taste and method of production (Grundlach and Neville, 2012).

However, since consumers interested in how wine is produced focus mainly on what went

into producing the final product (Beverland, 2006), Beverland’s (2006) Method of Production shares

the importance of ingredients with the Materials and Ingredients category presented by Grundlach

and Neville (2012). Ingredients, for example, help the consumer to distinguish between

mass-marketed wines, blended wines, and those produced in small batches (Beverland, 2006). Brand

managers should take into consideration that consumers mostly relate price to the quality of the

ingredients or the materials employed, expecting that “an authentic beer uses better quality ingredients … and is more expensive” (Grundlach & Neville, 2012, p. 491).

The importance of selecting quality raw materials is also stressed in Quality Commitments.

Producers commit themselves to invest in the best ingredients and together with vendors develop

marketing programs to communicate to consumers their uncompromising commitments to quality

(Beverland, 2006).

Another product attribute that producers ask marketers to strategically communicate,

especially in the case of consumption goods, is taste. However, while for Grundlach and Neville

(2012) it is the combination of ingredients and methods of production that affect taste, Beverland

(2006) suggests that taste derives from Stylistic Consistency. In the wine industry, both

knowledgeable and not knowledgeable consumers do not tolerate large variations in taste. However,

less knowledgeable consumers are risk-avoiders and tolerate little year-to-year variation, while more

expert and variety-seeking consumers, appreciate seasonal differences and wine styles that evolve

(19)

19

always the same taste is impossible, and hence, perceived as fake, experts consider consistency of

style, rather than taste, as the very essence of authenticity (Beverland, 2006).

Quality Commitments and Stylistic Consistency (Beverland, 2006) are fused in Grundlach and

Neville’s (2011) Commitments to Consistency and Quality. This is in line with consumers having in general little toleration for large variations in quality, as the majority equates consistency of taste and

quality with being authentic (Beverland, 2006; Grundlach & Neville, 2012). As authenticity is of

instrumental value, because it indicates a better quality product, it is crucial for producers not only to

commit themselves to quality, but also to preserve this quality consistently in the future (Grundlach

and Neville, 2012) and to clearly communicate it to consumers.

However, since the company can carry authenticity values which go beyond methods of

production and ingredients (Grundlach & Neville, 2012), both Company/Craftsperson (Grundlach &

Neville, 2012) and Craftsperson and Materials (Littrell et Al., 1993) underline the importance of

distinguishing the owner of the company from the actual artisan or craftsperson. Nevertheless, the

way consumers assess the authenticity of a product depending on the manufacturer is again highly

subjective. Indeed, while some pretend the artisan to be trained and loyal to methods handed down

through a family for generations, others associate authenticity with artists who rely on their “gut-level

expressions” and have not been infected by the rules of tradition (Littrell et Al., 1993).

It is also important to focus on those attributes, which are more in the hands of marketers,

rather than producers. Downplaying Commercial Motives (Beverland, 2006), Genuineness /

Prioritizing Craft Motives (Grundlach & Neville, 2012) and Workmanship (Littrell et Al., 1993) all

share the idea that, although consumers are aware that producers are driven by profit motives, they

wish to believe that what they are consuming is produced by craftsmen with fine attention to detail

and primarily motivated by professionalism, tradition and passion (Littrell et Al., 1993; Grundlach &

Neville, 2012).

However, in contrast to Grundlach and Neville (2012), Littrell et Al. (1993) treats genuineness

(20)

20

and credibility: consumers pretend display and advertising to be truthful (Littrell et Al., 1993). For

instance, the leverage of country-of-origin associations where there is no tangible link, or usage of

packaging and advertising to mislead consumers, would be perceived as inauthentic (Grundlach and

Neville, 2012). In the particular case of luxury or expensive items, written documentation is positively

related to perceived authenticity (Littrell et Al., 1993).

Shopping Experience and Genuineness (Littrell et Al., 1993) overlaps with Experience

(Grundlach & Neville, 2012; Peterson, 2005). It is common for people to claim authenticity by

immersing themselves in what they think to be authentic experiences (Peterson, 2005): the Belgian

way of serving beer in fancy glasses, for instance, contributes to make the consumptive experience

authentic (Grundlach and Neville, 2012).

Probably one of the most effective ways for marketers to communicate authenticity to

consumers is through packaging. However, packaging which is too innovative and presents

uncommon designs has been proven to be negatively related to perceived authenticity. That is,

although consumers look for exclusivity, they prefer conformity when it comes to the Esthetics of

packaging, completely aware of marketing’s abilities to imitate (Grundlach and Neville, 2012). In

more detail, Littrell et Al. (1993) describe aesthetics from Aesthetics, Function and Uses as a

continuum of non-mutually exclusive ends: on the one side there are personal perceptions - e.g. “if I

like it, it’s authentic” -, on the other side there is sensibility to aesthetics from the past or other cultures

- e.g. “used only by natives in that region” -.

Another cue used to assess whether a product is authentic or not is Uniqueness and Originality

(Grundlach and Neville, 2012; Littrell et Al., 1993). Uniqueness and Originality are achieved when

a brand’s concept, history, origin, packaging or product taste can not be easily replicated (Grundlach and Neville, 2012). However, the degree of uniqueness required by the product to be perceived as

authentic is highly subjective and context-dependent (Grundlach and Neville, 2012; Littrell et Al.,

1993). For instance, a beer made in Germany is unlikely to have a significant advantage in Germany,

(21)

21

consumers an authentic craft item has to be “one-of-a-kind” or “rare”, while others allow a limited

number of product duplications. Nevertheless, mass-produced items, made in a factory or assembly

line, are perceived as unauthentic. To be authentic to consumers who care about the content or form,

items have to be unusual, different and original in both color and design (Littrell et Al., 1993). In

addition, lack of availability in one’s past travels or home community (Littrell et Al., 1993) and being produced by a brand known for being an innovator (Grundlach and Neville, 2012) contribute to

authenticity by improving originality.

To be unique, the product has to be “rare” or at least not mass-produced (Littrell et Al., 1993). In these terms, Exclusivity partially overlaps with Uniqueness and Originality. Exclusivity is a

function of multiple criteria: price premium due to quality ingredients and method of production,

fancy packaging, limited availability due to retail locations and rarity of the item as such, heritage,

pedigree and country of origin. Nevertheless, although Exclusivity contributes to perceived

authenticity, it is only crucial for certain products and to certain consumers. For example, brands in

luxury markets such as jewelry or high-end fashion are rarely available in many locations, that is,

they are exclusive, but this is not unique or original to one brand (Grundlach and Neville, 2012).

Neither Beverland (2006) nor Littrell et Al. (1993) identify Exclusivity as an explanatory factor of

authenticity, but arguably, a product can be exclusive without necessarily being unique (Grundlach

& Neville, 2012).

In conclusion, the most recent literature about authenticity adopts the majority of those cues.

Napoli et. Al. (2014), for instance, use a combination of these cues in developing a scale to measure

brand’s authenticity, suggesting that there are multiple pathways by which brand authenticity can be

established. Some of the attributes used are heritage (Brown et Al., 2003), cultural symbolism (Holt,

1998), craftsmanship (Beverland, 2006; Fine, 2003), quality commitment (Beverland, 2005) and

(22)

22 Country-of-origin effect

This study will focus on Relationship to Place and Commitments to Consistency and Quality

authenticity’s attributes form previous section. As there is substantial evidence of a product’s

Relationship to Place having both direct and indirect effects of on consumers’ evaluations (Hong and

Wyer Jr., 1989; Li and Wyer Jr., 1994; Roth and Romeo, 1992), the country-of-origin effects on

product’s evaluation are presented in more detail.

The Relationship to Place of a product, is expected to generate what the academic literature

refers to as country-of-origin (COO) effect. The country of origin effect is a multidimensional

stereotypical construct that develops over time based on consumers’ different country associations

that can be product- or non product-related (Chen et Al., 2014). These different country associations

compose the country image: based on perceptions of the production and marketing strengths and

weaknesses, consumers create an overall image of the country. Consumers’ country image, then, plays a main role in product evaluation (Roth and Romeo, 1992).

However, the COO effect does not only depend on the image consumers retain about the

country. The way by which country of origin affects product evaluations depends also on multiple

other factors. These factors range from consumers’ familiarity with the product to be evaluated – e.g., product category knowledge -; the availability, the amount and the relevance of additional product

attributes and information and the importance of the evaluation (Li and Wyer Jr., 1994, Roth and

Romeo, 1992).

First, based on the availability and relevance of other product attributes, the country of origin

may just act as any other product attribute. In this case, the country is used in the same way as other

product characteristics. The consumer weights both specific product attributes and country of origin

the same, and combines their implications during the evaluation process (Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989;

(23)

23

A product's country of origin could also activate concepts and knowledge about the country

itself and the average quality of products manufactured there. By stimulating the country-related

associations that are stored in consumer’s mind, the product’s country of origin enables to infer more specific product characteristics (Li and Wyer Jr., 1994). These additional product attributes will

subsequently influence the interpretation of the limited amount of information provided at the

beginning (Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989). The additional product characteristics activated by the country

of origin accentuate the importance of the initial attribute information. That is, favorable (vs.

unfavorable) attributes are interpreted as more favorable (vs. unfavorable) than they would otherwise.

However, when a product's country of origin is presented together with other specific product

attributes, the features associated with the country might not be activated. Consequently, instead of

generating an initial general concept of the product on the basis of this information, consumers are

likely to treat the country of origin simply as any other product attribute (Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989).

Another way by which the country of origin may affect product evaluation derives from

studies concerning the role of stereotypes (Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein, 1987). Bodenhausen and

Lichtenstein (1987) suggests that, in order to simplify the evaluation task, consumers may use the

product’s membership to a category as an heuristic basis for judgments. When an object belongs to a category whose members present judgment-relevant attributes, consumers evaluate the product

based on the attributes of that category, without considering additional more detailed characteristics.

Consumers learning that a product originates from a country with a reputation for high quality

products, for example, may use this as a parameter to infer the quality of the product (Hong and Wyer

Jr., 1989). This is more likely to happen under two extreme conditions: when the amount of

information is large and hence too difficult to integrate, or when other information is completely

lacking (Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein 1987; Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989). However, the results of

some studiescontradict the heuristic hypothesis: no evidence of country of origin used as a surrogate

(24)

24

known to consumers (Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989). Nevertheless, the use of country of origin as heuristic

criteria is more likely when the evaluation task is difficult (Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein, 1987).

Evaluating product authenticity in the particular case of experiential or identity goods, as in this study,

may be an enough complex situation for consumers. Therefore, a tendency to adopt this strategy and

thus an increase of the country-of-origin effect on consumer’s perceived authenticity is expected.

Finally, a product's country of origin could affect the attention that is paid to latter other

attribute information, because it possibly excites general curiosity about the quality of the product. It

could be, for example, that the consumer reads the country of origin on the front label – e.g., country

of origin - of a wine bottle and this may influence the evaluation on the information presented on the

back label – e.g., producer’s commitments to consistency and quality -. When the country is known

to consumers, it spontaneously generates subjective hypotheses about the products from that

particular country – e.g., low or high quality products -. By receiving information about the products

originating from that country, consumers will then actively attempt to validate those hypotheses. As

a result, a product's country of origin may increase the impact of other attribute information on the

evaluation, because consumers will think more extensively about these latter product specific

attributes and assess their desirability (Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989).

Although the country of origin of a product is usually potentially available to consumers

(Keller, 1993), the strength of its association with the product depends on the emphasis it receives,

for instance, on the wine label.

Affect toward a country can be generated by consumers’ personal experiences or by appositely

designed advertising campaigns. Several governments are actively building their national equity to

promote positive feelings towards their respective countries: they the sponsor international events,

broadcast commercials - e.g., the “Incredible India” advertising campaign – in order to attract foreign

(25)

25

little is known about the subsequent impact of such positive affects on consumers’ evaluations of

products originating from these countries (Chen, Mathur, and Maheswaran, 2014).

Previous research seems to confirm that the association of a product and a country known for

superior workmanship increases the evaluation of this product (Hong & Wyer, 1989, 1990; Li and

Wyer Jr., 1994). For instance, multiple studies prove the perceived superiority of American-made

multiple product categories: mechanical goods, food, apparel, automobiles and small appliances. In

contrast, products from Japan are perceived to be of the worst quality (Ettenson, Wagner and Gaeth,

1988). In the marketing literature, instead, knowledge of a particular country and patriotism explain

the influence of country of origin on purchasing decisions (Roth and Romeo, 1992).

As similar effects are documented in multiple studies, marketers concluded that COO is a

crucial attribute in promotion strategy and therefore increasingly promote the fact that a product is

made in a country with a reputation for high-quality (Ettenson, Wagner and Gaeth, 1988; Li and Wyer

Jr., 1994). However, marketing managers who assume that evaluations of a product are influenced

by knowing the country of origin would benefit from understanding when promoting the COO is

beneficial (vs. damaging) for the item and which country image dimension should be improved (Roth

and Romeo, 1992).

Country-of-origin and authenticity: Research gap

In the “Cues to evaluate authenticity” section, the country of origin is only one cue consumers

use to assess the authenticity of a product. However, it typically interacts with other product attributes,

such as producer’s commitments to quality and consistency, in a way that may affect the evaluation (Roth and Romeo, 1992).

As the global marketplace is increasing in complexity and products are imported from other

(26)

26

consumers respond to products designed in one country, yet manufactured in one or more other

locations, or manufactured in one country but branded in another (Roth and Romeo, 1992).

Previous research, instead, emphasizes the existence of a COO effect and its consequences on

products’ perceived quality and reputation and consumers’ willingness to buy, leaving unanswered whether there could be a direct significant relationship between a product’s perceived authenticity

and the country from which it originates.

This is particularly significant in the case of experiential goods - i.e. manufactured goods,

packaged goods and services -, whose quality can be verified only after use. As the majority of

country-of-origin studies’ empirical settings involve consumer durables such as televisions,

microwave ovens and cars (Dinnie, 2004), and focus on the evaluation of products based on physical

attributes - e.g., Chen, Mathur and Maheswaran, 2014 -, the significance of country-of-origin as a

product cue to evaluate fast-moving and packaged consumer goods appears to be under-researched

(Dinnie, 2004).

Experience emerged already in the previous “Cues to evaluate authenticity” section. This cue

is not generalizable to all products, but only applicable to a limited category composed by experiential

- e.g., wine, food, movies, arts - and identity goods - e.g., luxury items such as cars and fashion clothes

-. Thus, one main limitation to present findings is whether they are applicable to experiential goods,

and future research is invited to examine whether the COO effect could be extended to this particular

kind of products (Chen, Mathur and Maheswaran, 2014). Indeed, especially when the industry taken

into consideration presents a large number of producers, the cost of gathering information on product

quality can be significantly high for customers (Landon and Smith, 1997) and consumers may favor

an overall holistic - i.e. global - evaluation (Chen, Mathur and Maheswaran, 2014). That is, although

interested in the quality of a product from an individual firm, they may predict the product’s quality

based on the quality reputation of a group of firms with which the target firm can be identified. In the

(27)

27

depend on the quality reputation of all Japanese cars, whereas consumer quality expectations of a

wine may be contingent on current or past average quality of all wines from the same region (Landon

and Smith, 1997).

The need of exploring the benefits that consumers experience when they consume or

experience something authentic is also highlighted by Grayson & Martinec (2004) and Napoli et Al.

(2014). On the one hand, experiential goods are disadvantaged with respect to other products because

it is difficult for consumers to predict their quality and authenticity. On the other hand, when

consumers personally experience the story behind the brand, the firm’s story may create or confirm

consumers’ perceptions of authenticity and the products become part of their consideration set, regardless of whether advertising cues that signal inauthenticity are present. Therefore, firms that are

not able to effectively support their claims of authenticity because they are not holders of tradition,

could use experiential strategies on their advantage and as a tool to defend themselves from

competitors (Beverland et Al., 2008).

Moreover, while Grayson and Martinec (2004) suggest that processes of self-authentication

and attributing authenticity to items are quite separate, this is generally true for consumers are making

quick in-store judgments of a product’s genuineness. However, in the case of self-referential

consumer behavior or when consumption becomes part of the consumer’s extended self, such as for

identity goods - e.g. high-quality wine, high fashion clothes, cars -, future research is necessary to

prove that the two processes are similar (Beverland et Al., 2008). In Lunardo and Guerinet (2007),

for instance, purchase decisions of young consumers on wine in part derive from the fact that the

label reflects consumers’ personality. As wine has become a product to be consumed in a special

situation, such as parties or romantic dinners, young people want to please their guest with a wine

they would enjoy drinking and more important that reflects their personality. As far as young

consumers are concerned, wine can be seen here as an extended self product (Lunardo and Guerinet,

(28)

28

The interplay between country-of-origin, the other aforementioned authenticity’s cues and

their effects on brand equity are growing challenge for brand managers who strive to build or maintain

their brand’s authenticity (Grundlach and Neville, 2012). Therefore, new insights which link

authenticity to the product’s country-of-origin are expected to provide brand managers with a better understanding of how consumers evaluate authenticity and of the degree of efficacy of the strategic

communication messages they design to improve authenticity’s perceptions in the minds of

stakeholders – e.g., consumers - (Napoli et Al., 2014). Indeed, marketers commonly position their

brand in the competitive market based on products’ superiority, quality and excellent services (Napoli

et Al., 2014). Authenticity allows a brand to “be true without being perfect” (Beverland, 2005;

Beverland et Al., 2008; Napoli et Al., p. 1096), however, the use of authenticity as a positioning

device and the deriving marketing implications need to be explored (Grundlach and Neville, 2012).

Thus, marketers would benefit from a deeper understanding of how consumers assess

authenticity. On the one hand, simply positioning a product by claiming it to be “authentic” is not

going to be successful, as the authenticity’s centrality to the brand or the product needs to be proven

(Beverland, 2005; Grundlach and Neville, 2012; Napoli et Al., 2014). On the other hand, although

advertising plays a very important role in communicating authenticity, a threshold effect is likely to

take place: open statements of authenticity – e.g., Wrangler “Born Authentic”, “Authentic Trappist

Product” logo - undermine such claims among many consumers, while advertisements that do not “scream too loudly” are more likely to be judged as authentic (Beverland et Al., 2008). Therefore, Beverland et Al. (2008) suggest that, advertisers should indirectly suggesting authenticity by using

the identified cues only after brand marketers have identified how their target consumers define

(29)

29

In summary, there is great potential in integrating country-of-origin literature with authenticity

literature (Roth and Romeo, 1992; Grundlach and Neville, 2012). In particular, the aim of this paper

is to evaluate the effect of the country-of-origin on consumers’ perceived authenticity of experiential

and identity products.

RQ: What are the effects of a product’s country-of-origin and perceived authenticity on the

(30)

30

Theoretical framework

Multiple bodies of research have developed an authenticity scale, in order to help brand

managers to approach market segmentation more effectively and assess the relationship between

authenticity and other marketing constructs (Napoli et Al., 2014). The marketing construct analyzed

in this paper is the country-of-origin effect.

Relationship to Place has been proven a relevant product attribute to evaluate authenticity.

Nevertheless, it seem to include other authenticity cues and influence the relevance of other specific

product attributes in the evaluation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to prove that the association

between a country and a particular product category may heavily affect the perceptions of consumers

to the extent that a product’s country of origin explains a great deal of consumers’ perceived

authenticity.

The hypothesis to be tested are presented and discussed in this section. The framework below

gives and overview of how the research is structured (Framework 1).

Framework 1. Summary framework of the hypotheses tested in this study. Country of origin Commitments to consistency and quality Consumer’s perceived authenticity Consumer’s product category knowledge Consumer’s country of origin

(31)

31

Authenticity driven by country of origin and commitments to consistency and quality

When considering the country of origin effect in relation to authenticity cues, it is not

exclusively the Relationship to Place of a product that is taken into consideration. For instance, would

consumers consider a beer which follows the traditional German brewing process and ingredients and

is packaged – name, font and size - as a German-beer, but is produced by a small Australian firm in

Melbourne, as an authentic German beer? (Grundlach and Neville, 2012). This question puts into

discussion the link between Relationship to Place and three other authenticity criteria: Method of

Production, Ingredients and Materials and Esthetics. In addition, the country-of-origin effect might

also include Heritage and Pedigree: how will consumers’ perceptions of BMW and Audi, which

traditionally stress their German heritage, change if they start manufacturing their products in China?

It is likely that the new, more efficient methods of production or the cheaper production

locations will affect consumers’ perceived authenticity. In particular, in a period when firms feel

considerable pressure to move their production to cheaper locations, the questions of what factors

contribute to authenticity, whether all those factors are needed, and how they interrelate to affect

perceptions of authenticity, are of significant importance for quality brands over the world.

This study evaluates consumers’ perceived authenticity by analyzing the effect of manipulated

information on wine labels. A reasonable motivation to set the empirical study in the wine industry

is that it carries a strong commitment to terroir, which incorporates holistically the soil, the climate

and the topography of the vineyard with the soul and experience of the wine producer (Beverland,

2006). Other goods, instead, can be manufactured in different countries or change production location

along the assembling process. A Turkish fabric, for instance, becomes a high-end dress in Paris, cut

and assembled by fashion-experienced French hands. The same thing happens for cars: outsourced

core parts are assembled into a “Made in Germany” product. In addition, grape growing methods,

alcohol content, limitations to yields and the delimitation of vineyards and regions are strictly

regulated in Old World wine producing countries - e.g., Italy, France, Spain - (Landon and Smith,

(32)

32

Moreover, compared to other products such as cars or high-tech items, a bottle of wine has a

limited amount of variability in terms of packaging – aesthetics - and post-purchase services. The

packaging of wine is considered a cue that lowers consumers’ purchasing risk by communicating the

expected quality of the product (Lunardo and Guerinet, 2007). Thus, it can be said that the main tool

consumers have to infer the authenticity of an experiential goods such as wine is its label with the

information it carries.

Since consumers tend to place a high value on wine regional designations and quality

classifications established by the governments and the industry as a whole (Landon and Smith, 1997),

marketers stress the country of origin for this product category. Unfortunately, for practical reasons,

this study will test exclusively the relationship between the country of origin and perceived

authenticity, excluding the “regional” effect. Indeed, since this study is based on an experiment, there

would have been too many different treatments to test. In addition, the region is often linked to grape

variety. All treatments show the same grape variety, Chardonnay, because it is grown in different

countries, and hence, can not be linked to one in particular.

Especially in those industries - e.g. wine industry - where there is a large number of producers,

firm-specific current quality information is difficult to find. Thus, the easiest and cheaper possibility

for consumers is to predict the quality of a firm’s products based on the reputation of a group of

similar firms (Landon and Smith, 1997). In their study about quality and reputation in Bordeaux wine,

Landon and Smith (1997) conclude that consumers combine information about the past quality of the

product - reputation model - with the average quality of the product category - collective reputation

model -, without taking into consideration current quality during their consumption decision-making

process. Under the reputation model current quality information is not available or too costly to

obtain. As a result, the product’s evaluation depends on the firm’s past reputation for quality products, rather than current product quality. When consumers are unable to find both firm’s current and

(33)

33

the average quality of the goods produced by a group of firms the producing firm can be compared

with.

Moreover, Labroo and Patrick (2009) observe that in the case of both the reputation and the

full-information model, consumers rely on collective reputation indicators, such as the product’s

country and region of origin. Although complete current quality information is easily available, those

collective reputation attributes affect the demand for certain products.

In summary, as the direct influence of product’s country of origin seems to occur regardless

of its indirect effects on other product information (Hong and Wyer Jr., 1989), the first hypothesis

aims to test that:

H1a: Consumer’s perceived authenticity of a luxury product increases with the presence of the

country of origin on the product’s label.

In the specific case of wine, consumers are increasingly demanding in terms of the amount of

information about the product required to make a purchasing decision (Lunardo and Guerinet, 2007).

When assessing authenticity is difficult, such as in the case of experiential goods, Commitments to

consistency and quality are crucial for the consumer.

Commitments to consistency guarantees that the producer aims to preserve the taste and the

style of the product over years. For wine and other consumption goods, in particular, taste is essential

but can not be evaluated beforehand. For instance, for some consumers, if the beer tastes like an

authentic German beer, it is perceived not completely authentic, but maybe authentic “enough”.

However, when considering experiential or identity goods, for example a designer suit labeled

“Designed in Italy-Manufactured in China”, the answer may change (Grundlach & Neville, 2012).

As far as commitments to quality are concerned, it is worth to mention that wine belongs to

the category of food. For this category, one of the main important factors influencing consumer’s

choice is perceived quality. Packaging and labels are the main sources a consumer can refer to in

(34)

34

In addition, Lunardo and Guerinet (2007) encourages to measure the influence of wine back

labels during the purchasing process, because while the front label is usually considered for evocation,

the back label carries relevant technical information and therefore has an informative function.

For these reasons, some treatments in this study present Commitments to consistency and

quality on the back label of the wine. The treatments in the experiment change only by country of origin and commitments to quality and consistency, resulting in a limited and controlled amount of

product attributes that the consumer can use in the evaluation.

The second hypothesis this study will test is:

H1b: Consumers’ perceived authenticity of a luxury product increases with the presence of the

commitments to consistency and quality on the product’s label.

The moderators’ effect

In Roth and Romeo’s study (1992) about how the match or mismatch between product

category and country image perceptions affect consumers’ purchase intentions, neither country

familiarity, nor product familiarity influence consumers’ perceptions of the product’s country of

origin. Although they controlled for familiarity - i.e., respondents were moderately to highly familiar

with the countries and product categories -, a greater variance along the familiarity dimensions might

affect consumers’ perceptions. One of the main limitations, indeed, is the use of self-assessments to

evaluate familiarity (Roth and Romeo, 1992). Therefore, this paper aims to measure actual country

experience and product category knowledge.

Consumer’s product category knowledge

The ability by which consumers infer a product’s authenticity by means of the country from

(35)

35

category. Indeed, previous research has proven that consumers’ level of product category knowledge

acts as a moderator variable in the relationship between the country-of-origin and perceived

authenticity (Napoli et Al., 2014). To overcome the limitations due to measurements made by

self-assessment, a reliable scale, which measures both objective and subjective knowledge, is needed. The

scale adopted in this study has been previously tested and specifically created for the wine industry

(see Dodd et Al.,2005; Brucks, 1985).

There distinction between objective and subjective knowledge is that subjective knowledge

describes how confident an individual is in his/her knowledge, while objective knowledge is the actual

knowledge of the individual. As it is likely that both types of knowledge influence consumers’

willingness to search for information and decision-making behavior (Brucks, 1985), further research

is needed to investigate potential product familiarity effects. If respondents evaluate products

differently, marketers need to adapt their strategies accordingly (Roth and Romeo, 1992).

This study expects product category knowledge to have a negative moderating effect on the

relationships between the perceived authenticity of a product and its country of origin. Consequently,

a positive moderating effect is expected on authenticity’s relationship with producer’s commitments.

This is due to the following reasons:

Information accessibility (H2a). A consumer who is not knowledgeable of the product category

is expected to assess a product authenticity based on the most easily available information. As far as

the wine industry is concerned, “the label on the bottle signals the producers’ names, the types of

wines, the origin, the vintage, the level of alcohol, and the government warnings” (Lunardo and

Guerinet, 2007, p. 73). In fact, as mentioned before, the country of origin generally has to be present

on the product’s label due to firm’s policy and government laws, making this attribute easily accessible to consumers.

Search for additional information. A negative relationship between the degree of product experience and the willingness to look for external additional information about the product was

The country-of-origin effect on consumers’ perceived product authenticity : the wine industry