• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.135-183
• /
• 2003

Aerospace force is a determining factor in a modem war. The combat field is expanding to space. Thus, the legitimacy of establishing aerospace force is no longer an debating issue, but "how should we establish aerospace force" has become an issue to the military. The standard limiting on the military use of space should be non-aggressive use as asserted by the U.S., rather than non-military use as asserted by the former Soviet Union. The former Soviet Union's argument is not even strongly supported by the current Russia government, and realistically is hard to be applied. Thus, the multi-purpose satellite used for military surveillance or a commercial satellite employed for military communication are allowed under the U.S. principle of peaceful use of space. In this regard, Air Force may be free to develop a military surveillance satellite and a communication satellite with civilian research institute. Although MTCR, entered into with the U.S., restricts the development of space-launching vehicle for the export purpose, the development of space-launching vehicle by the Korea Air Force or Korea Aerospace Research Institute is beyond the scope of application of MTCR, and Air Force may just operate a satellite in the orbit for the military purpose. The primary task for multi-purpose satellite is a remote sensing; SAR sensor with high resolution is mainly employed for military use. Therefore, a system that enables Air Force, the Korea Aerospace Research Institute, and Agency for Defense Development to conduct joint-research and development should be instituted. U.S. Air Force has dismantled its own space-launching vehicle step by step, and, instead, has increased using private space launching vehicle. In addition, Military communication has been operated separately from civil communication services or broadcasting services due to the special circumstances unique to the military setting. However, joint-operation of communication facility by the military and civil users is preferred because this reduces financial burden resulting from separate operation of military satellite. During the Gulf War, U.S. armed forces employed commercial satellites for its military communication. Korea's participation in space technology research is a little bit behind in time, considering its economic scale. In terms of budget, Korea is to spend 5 trillion won for 15 years for the space activities. However, Japan has 2 trillion won annul budget for the same activities. Because the development of space industry during initial fostering period does not apply to profit-making business, government supports are inevitable. All space development programs of other foreign countries are entirely supported by each government, and, only recently, private industry started participating in limited area such as a communication satellite and broadcasting satellite, Particularly, Korea's space industry is in an infant stage, which largely demands government supports. Government support should be in the form of investment or financial contribution, rather than in the form of loan or borrowing. Compared to other advanced countries in space industry, Korea needs more budget and professional research staff. Naturally, for the efficient and systemic space development and for the prevention of overlapping and distraction of power, it is necessary to enact space-related statutes, which would provide dear vision for the Korea space development. Furthermore, the fact that a variety of departments are running their own space development program requires a centralized and single space-industry development system. Prior to discussing how to coordinate or integrate space programs between Agency for Defense Development and the Korea Aerospace Research Institute, it is a prerequisite to establish, namely, "Space Operations Center"in the Air Force, which would determine policy and strategy in operating space forces. For the establishment of "Space Operations Center," policy determinations by the Ministry of National Defense and the Joint Chief of Staff are required. Especially, space surveillance system through using a military surveillance satellite and communication satellite, which would lay foundation for independent defense, shall be established with reference to Japan's space force plan. In order to resolve issues related to MTCR, Air Force would use space-launching vehicle of the Korea Aerospace Research Institute. Moreover, defense budge should be appropriated for using multi-purpose satellite and communication satellite. The Ministry of National Defense needs to appropriate 2.5 trillion won budget for space operations, which amounts to Japan's surveillance satellite operating budges.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.68-79
• /
• 2009

The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.