Causality Relationships between Main Branding Variables and International Marketing Strategy: Evidence from MNCs in GCC Market

Abstract

This research designed to figure out the sets of variables needed for designing an international marketing strategy (IMS) in GCC context. Therefore, the causality relationships between designing an IMS and brand orientation (BO), brand performance (BP), international financial performance (FP), international commitment (ICOM), brand repositioning (BR), congruence of marketing environment (CUE), controlling international branding activities (CIBA), and demographic factors (DF) were tested. The experiences of 156 senior executives, with international experience, working in GCC market have been utilized for that purpose. Via SPSS version twenty one and throughout multi-variant e.g. multiple regression, bi-variant e.g. correlation, and uni-variant e.g. descriptive analytical techniques, the research eight aims and hypotheses were tested. The study revealed that there are significant causality relationships between designing international marketing strategy (IMS) and study's demographics, brand orientation, financial performance, brand performance, international commitment, brand repositioning, congruence of marketing environment, and control of international branding activities. In branding context in GCC, the current study is a pioneer endeavor in this perspective. Research findings were seen as a pioneer endeavor outside the USA companies and markets that attracted most of international marketing scholars.

Covering International Marketing Influences on Firm International Performance: Evidences from GCC

“…Consequently, it is judgmental in nature and might differ from research to another. (Lotayif, 2017;2016). Secondly, content validity explains the appropriate coverage of the topics being researched (Rust and Golomok, 1999).…”

Environmental Scanning Mechanism and Its Effects on the Performance: Evidence from UAE

“…Data distribution's shape is considered normal when the sample size is bigger than 30 cases (Lotayif, 2017a, 2017b, 2016, 2015aand 2015band Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994. Consequently, normality dimension is assumed, as sample's size is 292 cases in the current study.…”