The paper “ How Local Culture Influences Product Adoption” is an exciting example of the term paper on marketing. This study presents a conceptual model focusing on cultural factors that influence product adoption. The study focuses on firm adoption status as the only dependent variable. Adoption status is the observation on whether or not a firm has adopted or is likely to adopt a product. Exogenous variables, in this case, are macro-level, mezzo-level, and micro-level factors influencing product adoption. Macro-level variables are national characteristics while micro- and mezzo-level variables are a company and industry attributes respectively (Baldwin & Scott, 2007, p.
78). So as to gain insight into the role of the above elements in influencing product adoption, this paper will present a case study involving European countries where cultural factors have varying influences on the adoption of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in organizations. Figure 1 describes the conceptual model for this study. Figure 1: Model explaining product adoption status of firmsMacro variablesOne of the main models describing the impact of national culture on product adoption is Hofstede’ s cultural framework (Yalcinkaya 2008, p.
207). This framework describes four cultural factors influencing product adoption, namely uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), individualism index (IDV), masculinity index (MAS), and power distance index (PDI). These factors were arrived at through a study conducted in large multinational companies in 72 countries in 1968 and 1972. In 2001, a fifth factor, long-term orientation (LTO), was incorporated into this framework (Yalcinkaya 2008, p. 207). As Hofstede (2001 p. 19) explains, these five dimensions can be used in providing an overall type of a nation’ s culture. Table 1 provides a summary of the attitudes and value connotations associated with low and high scores on the five dimensions of culture. According to Hofstede (2001, p.
20), power distance is the extent to which power is unequally distributed among individuals within institutions in a society. In societies where the degree of power distance is high, authority and status are quite important.
Baldwin, W L & Scott, J T 2007, Market structure and technological change, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland.
Doole, I & Lowe, R 2008, International marketing strategy: Analysis, development and implementation, Cengage Learning, New York.
Gauvin, S & Sinha, R K 2010, “Innovativeness in industrial organizations: A two-stage model of adoption”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 165–183.
Frambach, R T & Schillewaert, N 2002, “Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Business Research, Iss. 55, 163–176.
Hofstede, G 2001, Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Mohr, J, Sengupta, S & Slater, S F 2009, Marketing of high-technology products and innovations, Jakki Mohr Publishing, New Delhi.
Onkvisit, S & Shaw, J 2008), International marketing: Strategy and theory, Cengage Learning, New York.
Robertson, T S & Gatignon, H 1986, “Competitive effects on technology diffusion”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, Iss. 1, pp. 1–12.
Waarts, E & Everdingen, Y V 2005, “The influence of national culture on the adoption status of innovations: An empirical study of firms Across Europe,” European Management Journal, Vol. 23, Iss. 6, pp. 601-610.
Yalcinkaya, G 2008, “A culture-based approach to understanding the adoption and diffusion of new products across countries”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 25, Iss: 2, pp. 202-214.
Yaveroglu, I S & Donthu, N 2008, “Cultural influences on the diffusion of new products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14, Iss. 4, pp. 49–63.