第一章 緒論 第一節 研究背景 第二節 研究問題 第三節 研究目的 第四節 名詞定義及研究範圍 第二章 評估信用風險之文獻參考 第三章 研究設計 第一節 研究架構與變數 第二節 抽樣設計 第三節 資料分析方法 第四章 資料分析與研究結果 第一節 企業主持人執業資格、經驗、地緣關係與信用風險之關係。 第二節 各項特質對信用風險之預測能力。 第五章 結論與建議 附錄 Log-Iknear Models 統計技術簡介。

在傳統的觀點上，通路品牌的定位往往是被認為是品質較為低劣的、價格低廉的商品，但是現今零售商通路品牌的市占率節節提升，所以目前大多數的品牌商都把通路品牌視為和全國性品牌一樣的強勁對手，這是因為現在零售商開始不斷重視通路品牌的品質，同時也影響了消費者的知覺品質，零售商可藉由通路品牌影響消費者而進一步地提高對其他品牌製造商的議價力，同時塑造差異化以阻絕其他通路商可能的打擊，而台灣零售業近年來也不斷地致力於開發通路品牌，使得通路品牌漸漸成為重要的議題之一。本研究將針對消費者之所以購買通路品牌的因素作一探討，了解通路品牌績效的影響因素，並加以比較分析提出可能的原因，同時提供相關建議供實務界人士參考。 由於本研究是以消費者的觀點出發探究通路品牌績效的可能影響因素，故研究方法係以量化方式進行，以購買量販店通路品牌的消費者作為問卷發放對象。而本研究將通路品牌績效分為「購買行為」、「購買傾向」以及「通路品牌權益」等三項；影響因素亦分為三部分，分別為「製造商品牌因素」、「零售商因素」以及「消費者因素」，以統計分析方法探究此三種因素對通路品牌績效的影響。 分析結果發現製造商品牌因素中的產品創新程度對通路品牌績效有重要影響，顯示持續的產品創新、對產品研發的長期投資是阻擋通路品牌獲取市占率的重要作法之一。 在零售商因素中的商店印象也對自身的通路品牌績效有顯著的正面影響，表示量販店可以藉由整體商店印象的塑造來增加通路品牌實際的銷售。另外通路品牌的推式促銷也可以強化消費者心目中對通路品牌產品物美價廉、好品質的印象，同時也表示零售商可藉由內部賣場特殊購買點展示、暫時價格促銷等可以由零售商所主導的推式促銷來強化通路品牌績效。 在消費者因素方面，價格知覺以及商店忠誠的消費者心理特質均對通路品牌績效有重要的正面影響，而消費者對製造商品牌的品牌忠誠則有顯著的負面影響，表示品牌忠誠仍為影響消費者是否轉而選購物美價廉的通路品牌的重要因素。另外在消費者的創新特質、時間與財務壓力特質均對通路品牌績效有部分的顯著影響。 本研究亦提供了給予實務界的建議，在零售商方面共有三點建議：一、零售商應致力於商店印象的提升。二、善用經銷商促銷支援通路品牌。三、重視經營通路品牌、塑造通路品牌忠誠，與商店忠誠相輔相成。而在品牌製造商方面也有三點建議：一、重視自家品牌的產品創新。二、以降價的手段應戰在長期的觀點上較為不妥。三、品牌忠誠可有效遏止通路品牌的侵蝕。

澳洲的五金零售市場像許多歐美先進國家一樣，近年來由傳統的小型五金店家逐漸發展成大型連鎖五金零售店，許多地點不佳，規模不大，不具特色和競爭力的店家紛紛關閉，取而代之的是展示空間寬敞且明亮的大型企業型連鎖店。澳洲的五金零售市場現今是由一個獨大的公司型五金店和若干個次大的銷售集團所掌控的。五金零售通路之間在價格、產品線、促銷、客戶服務與開店地點方面彼此之間激烈地競爭著。因此想要銷售到這些零售通路的品牌批發商的處境更是困難，因為同業之間的競爭激烈，具有獨佔地位的客戶議價能力又強，如何能在這個傳統，技術層次不高的產業中持續的創新和成功，著實需要很強的企業核心能力與策略能力。 P公司憑藉著母公司的最高指導原則80/20和以客戶服務至上為宗旨的經營策略，在公司的配送運籌系統與內部作業流程持續地改善來降低成本，利用產品清楚地標示與使用說明來降低消費者的資訊搜尋成本和道德危機成本，和給客戶差異化的加值活動服務來增加效益和建立專屬成本。最重要地，P公司長久以來維持清楚與一致的品牌定位與市場區隔，因而建立了很高的品牌知名度與價值。 本文利用波特的五力分析先對澳洲五金批發商產業做競爭強度的 探討，後再使用邱志聖教授的策略行銷分析一書中4C的架構來分析P 公司的行銷策略。 從分析中我們得到品牌與差異化為這個產業的最大 優勢的結論。 唯有持續地創新來塑造品牌，致力於產品或服務的差異 化來增進效益，儘早地和客戶建立有形或無形的專屬資產，才能在這個 競爭激烈的產業環境中勝出。 值得為想要進入這個產業的企業借鏡。 最後的附註中有P公司數位資深主管們對這個產業與公司策略的 分析與寶貴意見，非常具有參考價值。 / Like many European and American advanced countries, in recent years the Australian hardware retail market has gradually developed from traditional small stores into large hardware corporately own chain stores. Many badly located, small scale stores do not have the breadth of product range and the competitive prices are shutting down. Replace theses stores, are the large corporately own hardware stores with brighter and spacious presentation. The Australian hardware retail channel is composed of one big dominator and a few secondary large promotion groups. These retail outlets are competing with each other on prices, product range, promotions, services and store locations. Therefore, those branded wholesalers who sell in the retail channels are in a more difficult situation. Due to the intensity of competitive rivalry and the strong bargaining power of customers, it is difficult for the wholesalers to survive in this traditional and low-tech industry. Large wholesale distribution company need to be continuously innovative, adding value to products and services, and requires a very strong core competency and strategic capability to survive. P company follows the guiding principle of parent company – “80/20" and customer service comes first as management strategy. The company is continuously improving on logistic/distribution system to lower cost. Its products offer clear product identification and user’s instruction to lower consumer’s information collection and moral hazard cost. P company also increase benefit and holdup cost with customers by differentiating its product and service to add value. Most of all, P company has long maintained unambiguous and clear brand positioning and product segmentation, so as to create very high brand awareness and value. This thesis uses firstly Porter’s 5 forces analysis to investigate the competitive intensity of Australian hardware retail industry. It then adopts Professor Chiou Jyh-Shen’s strategic marketing analysis theory - 4C framework to analyze P company’s marketing strategies. From the analysis, we conclude that brand and differentiation are the most important strategies in this industry. Every company should focus on innovation to create brand value, be devoted to the differentiation on products and service to create benefits for customers, build up tangible and intangible holdup cost with customers, so as to succeed in such highly competitive industry environment. These strategies are very important for enterprises who wish to enter this industry to learn.

本文使用微分賽局模型對單一製造商與零售商之間的廣告合作關係進行探討。製造商在全國進行廣告以建立產品商譽，而零售商則在當地進行促銷以增加產品銷售量；但促銷行動會損害該產品的商譽，且零售商除了販售製造商的national brand之外還販售自己引進的private brand。此外本文試圖探討零售商對於national brand商譽累積的不同態度(短視近利與有遠見的)對雙方利潤所造成的影響。結果顯示，若商譽的存量小於某一水準時，零售商的最適策略是表現出短視近利的態度。且零售商引進private brand一定會對製造商的利潤造成負面的影響，但廣告合作計畫可改善此狀況。最後，對於零售商來說，只有在期初的商譽小於某一水準時，引進private brand才可能獲利。

本論文一冊、五萬多字，共五章十三節。主要研究多元體系、個體的百貨批發商之客 戶所認知對批發商的滿意水準及滿意水準形成過程的一個因果模式。用完全隨機抽樣 一百家零售店、並由筆者親自訪問各家老闆。資料分析的技術有相關分析、因徑分析 及逐步迴歸分析等。得到的結果發現，當批發商使用強制性權力來源時，零售店的滿 意水準會降低；但是，如使用非強制性權力來源，則滿意水準會升高。另外，零售商 所認知的批發商權力及衝突，也會降低其滿意水準。

以消費者為基礎的零售市場趨勢變化，重新定義了品牌對於消費者的意涵，使製造商品牌和零售商自有品牌權益的戰爭有了新的趨勢。新的零售概念開始萌芽後，零售商自有品牌逐漸成長，而通常付出代價的是製造商。 本研究試圖由消費者、製造商、與零售商三個不同構面，探討對於品牌權益的認知差異。以消費者為基礎的零售商自有品牌權益認知的問卷調查資料，也依據抽樣樣本的性別、年齡、月收入、教育程度與職業別進行分析，以期能檢視不同消費族群，對於零售商自有品牌主觀認知的差異不同。 研究發現，台灣的消費者對於零售商自有品牌的品牌識別比例高達97.87%；但是對於品牌意涵的回應比例卻低於25%。盡管高達83.45%的消費者認為零售商自有品牌，在未來的發展會有增加的趨勢；但對於高價零售商自有品牌的接受性還是較低。 性別對於零售商自有品牌的主觀認知影響不大。但是年齡差異的影響則明顯不同。雖然三十歲以上的消費者，主觀的認知到零售商自有品牌的產品創新，不過對照其他不同年齡組群，也只有年齡較長的消費者(四十一歲以上的族群)，基於對於製造商品牌心理的連結與行為的忠誠度，未來還是選擇不會購買更多的零售商自有品牌產品。顯然的，零售商自有品牌產品的品牌權益，對於四十一歲以上的理性族群消費者的吸引力仍舊不足；反倒是，商店本身的品牌權益，對於各年齡層的消費者購買行為，都具有正面的效果。 同樣的，消費者的教育程度與自有品牌創新的滿意度成反比。而不同於一般人主觀的認知，高收入的族群對自有品牌產品的滿意度，已經實質的高過其他中低收入族群。 對於零售商自有品牌的趨勢而言，個案中的零售便利商店，都認為自有品牌會是零售商未來的發展方向與趨勢。不過，零售便利商店對於自有品牌創新差異化模式，會因不同零售商而有很大的差異。7-ELEVEN的差異化，是在價值上的創新，價格因素還是主要考量；全家便利商店則認為產品的獨特與創新上的差異，會是吸引消費者購買的重要因素。因此，全家對於自有品牌的品牌權益與價格溢酬，自然會有比較樂觀的看法。而單就自有品牌商品營業額的成長幅度而言，7-ELEVEN和全家便利商店去年分別高達110%與130%。 食品製造商由於主觀認知上的落差，因而忽視來自零售商品牌的威脅所導致的危機。這種狀況或許可透過不同通路系統多樣性的代工模式，進而分散來自零售便利商的威脅與風險。品牌產品製造與自有品牌代工兼容並進的雙軌發展模式，會是製造商生存的策略之一。 零售通路的自有品牌產品，已經得到消費者主觀認知上的注意與肯定。聰明的消費行為，也讓消費者逐漸轉向價值創新的零售商自有品牌，而捨棄了製造商品牌產品。零售商自品牌產品，不再只是市場的低價替代性產品。創新價值的零售商自有品牌產品的品牌權益，賺取了原本屬於製造商品牌的價格溢酬。 低價不是便宜，而是刪除了不合理的價格溢酬。雖然價格是品牌發展的重點，可是價值更是關鍵。零售商自品牌產品『平價奢華』的價值創新，會是感動消費者的價值主張。 消費者已經清楚知覺到零售商自有品牌所提供的品牌價值；零售商也知道自己擁有的通路優勢與經濟的規模，並以產品價值創新與獨特的差異性，積極零售商自有品牌權益的革命。製造商必須注意消費者對於零售商自有品牌權益的認知、與正面自有品牌回應的趨勢，以及零售商的積極品牌打造的企圖心；清楚品牌競爭的事實，以維護製造商產品的品牌權益。 製造商品牌並沒有消失，只是品牌權益已不再是製造商所獨有。零售商自有品牌，會是製造商未來必須面對的最大挑戰。 / Recent change in the consumer-based retail market trend has redefined consumers’ perception of the meaning of brand. War over brand equity between the manufacturer and the retailer has evolved to another level. As retailers’ private brand (PB) takes on a new concept, it is taking a toll at the manufacturer’s expense. This research tries to identify the perception of private brand from three different perspectives: the manufacturer, the retailer, and the consumer. The consumer-based retailers’ PB equity survey data was analyzed for the difference in subjective perspective based on respondents’ gender, age, personal income, level of education, and occupation. The result shows that 97.87% of the respondents recognize the brand identity of retailers’ PB. However, only 25% of the respondents are aware of the brand meaning and actually purchase PB products on a regular basis. 83.45% of the respondents answered positively on the future development of PB, but the majority still can’t accept the notion that retail prices for PB are higher than the manufacturers’ brand (MB). Gender does not seem to be a factor in the consumer’s perception of PB. However, age does have a major influence on the acceptance of the PB for consumers. Although older respondents, 30-years old or older, recognize the competitiveness of PB products for their innovative capability, with the emotional connection and the brand loyalty toward MB, the group of 41-year-olds or older expressed reluctance to purchase more PB products in the future. Obviously brand equity of PB products has yet to develop brand relationship with older consumers to allure them into the shops. On the contrary, brand equity of the retailer shops itself does have a positive influence on the sales of PB products. Consumers’ educational level has a negative effect on the degree of satisfaction in PB product innovation. Furthermore, contrary to general perception, consumers with higher income level registered a higher preference for the PB product as well. Both of the two convenience stores (CVS) in this case study agree with the upward trend of the PB. In fact, in 2009, 7-ELEVEN and FamilyMart each grew an impressive 110% and 130% respectively in sales revenue of their PB products. However, both CVS have very different innovation models in strategic thinking and positioning their stores. 7-ELEVEN focuses more on value innovation and uses pricing as differentiation tactic in the market. On the other hand, FamilyMart puts product innovation and uniqueness as its priority to attract consumers. Manufacturers who choose to ignore the threat of PB may subject themselves to the high risk presented by the burgeoning of such products. One possible solution may be through OEM/ODM of PB for various retailers in order to diversify and minimize possible threats and risks. Production of manufacturers’ own brand and retailers’ private brand in a two-track manufacturing system may well be a strategic way to survive for manufacturers. Consumers are aware of and have recognized the existence of PB in retailer stores. The idea of smart shopping has its own right on the value innovation of PB for the consumer. PB no longer represents cheap products in the retail market. As PB positions itself with higher retail prices, it will possess the brand equity and earn the price premium at the toll of MB. Low pricing does not imply cheap quality but the elimination of excessively unreasonable price premium of a product. Pricing is important to brand development, but value should be the key in establishing the perception of brand quality. Affordable luxury is a value innovation of the PB that creates an irresistible value proposition to touch the heart of consumers. Consumers have clearly perceived the brand value of the PB. Retailers are also aware of the advantages they have with the channel, the scale and scope of economy; as a result, they are vigorously preparing for the battle to redefine the meaning of brand. It is time for manufacturers to change their mindset and face the inconvenient truth of the competition over brand equity. Manufacturers’ brand still has its own right, but the brand equity is no longer monopolized by them. Retailers’ PB has certainly become the strongest competition that manufacturers will need to confront now and in the near future.