Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 911

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Product Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses

Open access
Phillips, Lynn W., Chang, Dae R., Buzzell, Robert D.·1983·Journal of Marketing
DOI 10.1177/002224298304700204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study uses a causal modelling methodology to examine competing methodological and theoretical hypotheses concerning the effects of product quality on direct costs and business unit return on investment (ROI). Results show that the PIMS’ measures under study exhibit high reliability across all samples. The findings fail to support the widely held view that a high relative quality position is incompatible with achieving a low relative cost position in an industry.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002224298304700204

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 911

Metadata

Authors
Phillips, L. W., Chang, D. R., & Buzzell, R. D.
Venue
Journal of Marketing
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1983-04
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
26-43
ISSN
  • 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7185
DOI
10.1177/002224298304700204
OpenAlex
W2031871787
Cited by
911
References
3
FWCI
24.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.