• 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • Finally there was no evidence


    Finally, there was no evidence for H5. The multi-group analysis and the test for difference in the coefficient for EXPOS→OBE did not find significant differences between low and high involvement samples. If involvement is indeed a moderator, a possible explanation for its lack of significance here could be a lack of variability in the variable, or a range restriction problem (Aguinis, 1995). Although two levels of product involvement were used in this study, these product categories belong to “convenience” or “preference” types (Murphy & Enis, 1986), which could relegate them to a low involvement level among a broader classification that includes “shopping” and “specialty” products.
    Conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future research From a legal perspective, and given the fact that well-known and famous brands are powerful intangible assets for companies and consumers, the international legal framework calls for special treatment for so-called “well-known trademarks”, in the form of an extra scope of protection afforded to famous trademarks. In this respect, the results of this study support the increasing pressure from the legal ARCA Supplier and public institutions to reinforce trademark laws in relation to the protection of famous brands. Unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that are not necessarily likely to confuse consumers regarding the manufacturer of the product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently famous and well-known trademarks from losing their singular association in the mind of the public with a particular product, which ultimately affects overall brand equity and brand financial value.
    Conflict of interest
    Introduction In the last few years, we have witnessed a growing trend of exchanging among consumers. Consumer-to-consumer (C2C hereafter) exchanges are either transforming existing markets (Giesler, 2008) or creating new markets (Scaraboto, 2015). These C2C markets could be thought of as a form of co-creation giving rise to “collaborative capitalism” (Cova, Dalli, & Zwick, 2011): if consumers feel they are capable of producing value and want to avoid interacting with brands for fear of exploitation, they turn to one another to exchange value, a phenomenon that Humphreys and Grayson (2008) call collective production. Previous literature has examined C2C markets (e.g. Giesler, 2008; Plouffe, 2008; Scaraboto, 2015) but research is still limited, especially with regard to participants’ goals and participation in such markets. As such, the study of C2C markets and exchanges constitutes a timely research line for marketers inviting further studies. In this study, we examine timebanking, one of such exchange networks among peers and a popular form of community currencies (Dittmer, 2013). Timebanks (TBs hereafter) are nonprofit organizations hosting an exchange network that does not use tender money; in contrast, there is a direct exchange of services or products and time is used as currency (i.e. an hour\'s work for an hour\'s work) (Peacock, 2006). Their functioning is simple: an individual provides services to another individual earning time credits that they may later use to obtain a service that they need. In turn, the party receiving the service has a debt in time credits and needs to ‘repay’ the debt by offering a service to any member of the TB. In this way, time is ‘banked’ and may be used when the volunteer needs it. These exchanges include a variety of services and products from gardening to child care (Seyfang, 2006). When examining these exchange systems, authors have emphasized the political and social goals of timebanking and characterized it as a new social movement. For instance, Laamanen, Wahlen, and Campana (2015) defined it as a lifestyle movement, the materialization of the everyday life politics, where lifestyle is the primary means of activism. Likewise, Collom (2011) pictured it as a local social movement organization and linked it to the antiglobalization and communitarian movements. Also, several authors (e.g. Dittmer, 2013; Seyfang & Longhurst, 2013) position community currencies, among which is timebanking, as well-fitted with the degrowth and sustainable development paradigm. Dubois, Schor, and Carfagna (2014) also have greatly emphasized the social role that timebanking plays, as it creates social networks fostering bonding and bridging, the two mechanisms of social capital.