The Usage of Made In for the Segmented Products - Essay Example

The Usage of “Made In” for the Segmented Products The advancement in the international perception of business structuring has seen a progressive unification of the production line. Apparently, nations are considering he specialization of services an ideal tool of revenue generation. Specialization is accosted with the reduction in the cost of production. However, the location of extreme cases of specialization involves the involvement of a global industry. Advancements in the market have allowed for the integration of extensive aspects of production with respect to the pricing and the contest in the market. The command of the market has been linked to the efficiency of the product and the considered aspect of the economy. Such allows for the consideration of advanced technology and improvement in the economics of the cost towards the address of the rivals under practice. The superiority among the rivals allow for the conceptualization of the eventual ability they extend in the considered domination, as well as in the out-positioning of inferior products. The stationing of different arms of production under geographical distinctions allows for the reflection of the challenge they stand to offer with respect to the prospective concept of state recognition. Apparently, goods desire to be recognised alongside the state of origin. However, the inclusion of different states or countries in the process of production only assists in the complication of the entire acknowledgement process. Such allows for the reflection of the immediate challenges that may be related with the shipping of products with a source complication (Scheve, 2002). Various approaches have been considered to be associated with the eventual process of development and allocation of the “made in” tag. Allowing a state to consider a product to be manufactured in its territory allows for the improvement in its global perception of technology. However, the producing authority may not have had a comprehensive manner upon which the process of filing of the respective descriptions of rights and protocols are advised. Instead, there exists a line of acknowledgment with respect to the role plaid by the involved country (Tanzi, 2002) Some stations develop singular aspects of the component that are considered independent of the rest of the elements. In such instances, the prospective manufactory rights of such nations are fully embraced by the associated products. Possibility of having negotiations on the eventual ownership of the product is further compromised by the effects it has on the state of assembly. Apparently, a significant number of players in the market have considered segmenting the products but associating the respective elements to the state of origin. Such may be best exemplified by the reflection on electronics where the chipsets are made in a separate state as compared to the boards and the chassis. In respond the firm allows the reflection of each of the component with respect to the state of origin, while the assembling station is recognised with respect to the role it plays towards the realization of the finalized product (Milberg, 2004) However, such assumptions may be considered to be in-ideal in the promotion of the respective products. Consumers tend to exercise less preference to the segmented products. Additionally, the quality of a product is perceived to be achieved along the prospective recognition of the involved firm as compared to the nation of origin. In that regard, a new line of recognition that acknowledges the firm responsible for the product is overtaking the entire concept of using the “made in” tag on the products (Mandle, 2001) Such is advised by the concept of false representation of some products. Apparently, sealing the products into a chassis made in a different nation as compared to the rest of the components may lead to a claim of false representation in respect to the client decision. Such concerns are founded on the noble producers that face the global market. While considering the role of the noble players in the international market, the utilization of the country of origin as a basis of marketing is critically essential. The same may not be argued for the players that have stabilized their impact in the market. In respect to the stable players, the statement of origin allows for the company to communicate its new subsidiary in a different nation. Sony, for example has its product well distributed across the respective nations and progressive centres of assembly. However, a new firm will have to focus on the credibility associated to the respective nation to attract consumer preference (Ferleger & Mandle, 2000) Reflecting on the USA case Apparently, the same line of argument allows for the limitation of the possibility of fairness that may be engaged in the production arena. A producer may be compelled to engage into uncouth practise in respect to the promotion of the considered products. There exist a number of concerns that may be annexed to the eventual state of acquiring a pronounced product or the prospective command of the market. Apparently, the introduction of a new product is challenged by the credibility of the involved firm. Consumers tend to consider the success of the initiative to be founded on the testing done over the ages. However, the same privileges of proven products may be assigned to the source nation. Some states are perceived to be associated with quality products (Rabine, 2002). Such explains the careful ploy by the Japanese firm to use a trick that may convince the consumer of a false source of the considered products. However, the statement “MADE IN USA, JAPAN” offers a sense of conflict in respect to the ideal prospect of nation that sources the product. Arguably, the usage of the phrase “MADE IN USA, JAPAN” is perceived to be an erroneous representation of an accurate information. The products were made in the Usa town of Japan. The prospective correlation of the town’s name to the USA as a country remains a matter of conflict in branding. The manufacturer was keen to point on the Japan as the state that is associated to the Usa town. However, it may be argued that indeed the prospective ability of the consumer to make purchases with respect to the possibility of making a distinction on the state of origin remains out of consideration (Manders & Brenner, 1999). However, the firm may argue that indeed the statement only intended to elaborate on the source nation with the firm’s name remains the ideal representation of the importance of the product. Considering the entire concept of product globalization The embrace of global arena in production is associated to the prospective concept of cost cutting, as well as the eventual ability of the consumer to point on the prospective grounds upon which the excellence of the product may be quantified. However, the latter may not be perceived as a critical aspect of consideration when the process of brand identification is regarded (United Nations, 2009). There exist a significant range of concerns that are associated to the product and its source country. Arguably, the entire globalization of the production process seeks to limit the prospective impact that is associated to the country of origin. It may be further argued that the prospective ability of the firm in the promotion of the production line in respect to the country of origin is limited with the expansive aspect of the involved players. Such a suggestion considers the input of the product in respect to the ability upon which the manufacture has deployed the crème of technology in its production. The ability of the firm in the mitigation of the associated cost as a factor of product profitability remains the elemental reason behind the deployment of segmented approach (Gourevitch, Bohn & McKendrick, 2000). Arguably, the success of the globalization of the production line requires the sidelining of the information on the source nation. Such allows for the conceptualization of the product as a collective effort of the excelling firms in the industry as compared to the prospective marketing of the host nations. Additional interests that may be annexed to such a move remains described along the ability of a firm in producing a singular addition to the product. The aviation industry remains regarded as the elemental beneficiary of such intents. The bulky nature of the involved products implies that the considered players are expected to concentrate in the development of a singular additive. The integration of such level of specialization allows for the consideration of globalization of production as the ideal model upon which the entire process of manufactory may be achieved (Baum & Lampel, 2010). Product segmentation allows for the mitigation of various concerns that are aligned to the process of the manufactory. The purpose of production is closely associated with the subsequent process of marketing. The prospective ability of some firms to stabilize in the level of excellence associated with their products allows for the limitation of the performance production of other nations in the market. Embracing the process of generation of products as a factor of specialization open constrains of source nation thus allowing the unpopular nations to be recognised. Such measures remains ideal in the elimination of the crafty acts of misrepresentation as expressed in the case of “MADE IN USA, JAPAN”. The embrace of a comprehensive line of production allows the elimination of such concerns since the host state will create a name from the excelling products that are associated to its industry. References Baum, J. A. C., & Lampel, J. 2010. The globalization of Strategy research. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Ferleger, L., & Mandle, J. R. (January 01, 2000). Dimensions of globalization [special topic]. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570. Gourevitch, P., Bohn, R., & McKendrick, D. G. (January 01, 2000). Globalization of production: Insights from the Hard Disk Drive Industry. World Development : the Multi-Disciplinary International Journal Devoted to the Study and Promotion of World Development, 28, 2.) Manders, A. J. C., & Brenner, Y. S. (January 01, 1999). Globalization, new production concepts and income distribution. International Journal of Social Economics, 26, 4.) Mandle, J. (January 01, 2001). Reforming globalization. Challenge, 44, 2, 24-38. Milberg, W. S. (2004). Labor and the globalization of production: Causes and consequences of industrial upgrading. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Rabine, L. W. (January 01, 2002). The entanglements of exchange, the pleasures of production, and the ethics of export. Global Circulation of African Fashion, 169-196. Scheve, K. F., Slaughter, M. J., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (2002). Economic insecurity and the globalization of production. Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research. Tanzi, V. (January 01, 2002). Globalization and the future of social protection. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49, 1, 116-127. United Nations. 2009. Globalization of production and the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises in Asia and the Pacific: Trends and prospects. New York: United Nations. Read More