Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 Enrolling Men, their Doctors, and Partners: Individual and Collective Responses to Erectile Dysfunction Ericka Johnson and Cecilia Åsberg Using the Pfi zer funded Swedish informational site about erectile dysfunction (ED), www.potenslinjen.se, we examine how potential users, their partners, and medical doctors are enrolled in the process of creati
Real Differences Between Local and International
Brands: Strategic Implications for International
In the current context of globalization, firms have concentrated ABSTRACT
their efforts on the development of international brands. As aresult, international brand portfolios have been restructured,and many successful local brands have been eliminated. Thisarticle’s objective is to improve the understanding of localbrand differences and competitive advantages relative to inter-national brands. To achieve this, the authors reanalyzed theYoung & Rubicam database Brand Asset Valuator and exam-ined more than 744 brands across the four largest countries inEurope: the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy. Theauthors discuss the managerial implications of the findings forinternational marketers as they develop their ideal interna-tional brand portfolios. Consistent with current trends in globalization, many inter-national companies have moved from a multidomestic mar- Isabelle Schuiling
keting approach to a global marketing approach. This move and Jean-Noël
to global marketing has had a major impact on companybranding strategies. During the past few years, international Kapferer
companies have concentrated their efforts on the develop-ment of international brands. For example, Unilever is in theprocess of eliminating 1200 brands from its brand portfolioto concentrate on 400 brands. Procter & Gamble (P&G) haskept 300 brands, after selling many of its local brands.
L’Oréal has built its success on 16 worldwide brands. Nestléhas given priority to its 6 strategic worldwide brands, includ-ing Nescafe and Buitoni, and Mars has invested mainly inglobal brand names.
In this context, firms’ focus on the development of interna-tional brands has had a negative impact on local brands.
Many brands have been eliminated from international brandportfolios. This trend has been found not only in the fast-moving consumer goods sector but also in many other typesof industry, including banking, insurance, oil, and retailing.
It might be questioned whether the elimination of these localbrands represents a lost opportunity for international compa-nies. Strong local brands have traditionally benefited from ahigh level of awareness in their countries. Consumers have developed close relationships with local brands over the years, and this represents solid marketing investment in Journal of International Marketing
Vol. 12, No. 4, 2004, pp. 97–112
Both academics and practitioners have focused on the devel-opment of international and global brands (Boddewyn,Soehl, and Picard 1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas2000; Levitt 1983; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Wind 1986). Assuch, little work has been done to study the specifics of localbrands. Several articles have mentioned the existence oflocal brands (de Chernatony, Halliburton, and Bernarth 1995;Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001; Halliburton and Hünerberg1993; Kapferer 2000, 2002), but no in-depth research hasbeen conducted on their success compared with that of inter-national and global brands.
However, international managers confront difficult questionswhen developing the ideal international brand portfolio(Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001). They must decide notonly how to build their international brands but also whichlocal brands to build, which to eliminate, which to sell, andeven which to assimilate under an international brand name.
These are important decisions that significantly influenceany company’s success.
Therefore, it is particularly useful to develop further under-standing of local brands relative to international brands inthe current globalization context. To achieve this, we con-ducted exploratory research that covers two phases. The firstphase consisted of interviews with international marketers,and the second phase involved conducting an analysis ofYoung & Rubicam’s (Y&R’s) extensive brand database, BrandAsset Valuator.
Our objective in this article is to better understand the realdifferences between local and international brands. We firstdiscuss recent perspectives on local and international branddevelopment and identify the strategic advantages of localbrands compared with international brands. We then evalu-ate the differences in brand equity between local and inter-national brands. Last, we conclude by highlighting the impli-cations of these findings for international marketers.
We define local brands as brands that exist in one country or PERSPECTIVES ON LOCAL AND
in a limited geographical area (Wolfe 1991). Such brands INTERNATIONAL BRAND
may belong to a local, international, or global firm. We defineinternational brands as brands that have globalized elements DEVELOPMENT
of the marketing strategy or mix. In a more radical sense,global brands are defined as brands that use the same mar-keting strategy and mix in all target markets (Levitt 1983).
The debate on global marketing is not new, and the topic has Global Brand Development
been a subject of research for more than 30 years (Boddewyn,Soelh, and Picard 1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas2000; Douglas and Wind 1987; Huszagh, Fox, and Day 1986;Jain 1989; Levitt 1983; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Sorenson and Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer Wiechmann 1975). The advantages of moving to interna-tional and global brands under a global marketing strategyhave frequently been emphasized (Aaker and Joachimsthaler1999; Buzzell 1968; Kapferer 1992, 2004; Levitt 1983;Onkvisit and Shaw 1989).
A key advantage of globalization is firms’ opportunity tobenefit from strong economies of scale. It is well-known thata standardized brand can generate significant cost reductionsin all areas of the business system, including research anddevelopment, manufacturing, and logistics. The shift to asingle global brand name also provides substantial savings inpackaging and communication costs (Bartlett and Ghoshal1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas 2000; Levitt 1983;Porter 1986). Multinational corporations have leveragedthese economies of scale to gain major competitive advan-tages in worldwide markets (Douglas and Wind 1987). Suchreductions in costs reduce prices and enhance financial per-formance. Another advantage is the development of a uniquebrand image across countries. It is especially important incertain product categories, whose brands target worldwidesegments of consumers, such as the affluent and teenagersegments (Hassan and Katsanis 1991).
The speed to market for new product initiatives that interna-tional brands offer is also important for international compa-nies, which can now launch new product initiatives in thefast-moving consumer goods industry on a regional or globalscale within 12 to 18 months. Such a cycle takes much moretime when brand strategies are not globalized. Anotheradvantage is the possibility of supporting any global brandwith large budgets in the communications area. This is espe-cially important in the context of very high advertising andmedia costs.
However, we note that the push toward development ofinternational and global brands has been driven more bysupply-driven considerations linked to costs than by marketconsiderations. In most cases, consumer preference has notbeen the primary reason for companies to decide to move tointernational and global brands (Kapferer 1991, 2004; Terp-stra 1987). An example of an international firm that hasaccelerated its development of global brands since the early1990s is P&G. Its objective has been to achieve competitiveadvantage in its markets. The benefits that accrue from sucha strategy include significant economies of scale that lead toreduced costs and thus improved financial performance. It isnot surprising that P&G’s key competitor, Unilever, a strongproponent of a multidomestic marketing approach,announced in 1999 that it would further globalize its opera-tions. The competitive disadvantage of Unilever’s approachwas illustrated clearly by an example in its fabric softener business. Unilever competed in Europe under differentbrand names (Robijn, Coccolino, and Mimosin), whereasP&G had a unique European brand, Lenor, in all countries.
Neither academics nor practitioners have paid much atten- Local Brand Development
tion to local brands. Some authors have pointed out the exis-tence of local brands (de Chernatony, Halliburton, andBernarth 1995; Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001; Halliburtonand Hünerberg 1993; Quelch and Hoff 1986) and have dis-cussed their characteristics (Ger 1999; Kapferer 2000, 2002;Schlosser 2002). Other authors have analyzed the impact oflocal brand names on brand attractiveness in a Chinese con-text (Francis, Lam, and Walls 2002; Zhang and Schimitt2001), but to our knowledge, no one has conducted in-depthresearch to further develop the understanding of local brands.
However, in Europe, there are many more local brands thaninternational brands, though the trend of the proportion oflocal brands to international brands is diminishing.
Although the car, computer, and high-tech industries, amongothers, are well-known for their strong international brands,many sectors are still characterized by their local brands. InGermany’s oil industry, British Petroleum acquired the localleader Aral and, in view of its strong brand equity, decided toretain the local brand name. In France, the leading whiskybrands are not the well-known J&B or Johnny Walker but thelocal Label 5, Clan Campbell, and William Peel. In the CzechRepublic, Danone did not succeed in imposing its global Lubrand on that market and has had to use the local brand fran-chise Opavia to develop its business. In Belgium, the leaderin the mineral water market is the local leader Spa, and it hasshares well above the international leader Evian.
Local brands also represent many years of marketing invest-ment. They are well-known in their markets and often buildstrong relationships with local consumers over the years.
However, strong local brands have essentially been elimi-nated from multinational brand portfolios, not because theydo not represent strong brand franchises locally, but becausetheir relative sales volumes do not permit economies ofscale. For example, at the end of the 1990s, P&G consideredeliminating the leading detergent, Dash, in Italy and Belgiumdespite the brand’s national institution and extreme prof-itability in both countries. The company’s motivation at thetime was that Dash created cost complexities in Europe,where Ariel was the European leader.
The advantages of firms building international brands are Strategic Advantages of Local
substantial and have an inexorable logic. However, local Brand Development
brands also represent strategic advantages that must be con-sidered. We gathered the data pertaining to the strategicadvantages of local brands during the first phase of the Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer exploratory research. This involved interviewing generalmanagers and marketing directors of ten well-known multi-national firms: Unilever, Nestlé, P&G, Coca-Cola, ReckittBenckiser, Sara Lee, Campbell Food, Bacardi-Martini, KraftJacobs Suchard, and Inbev (formerly Interbrew). We discussthe advantages of maintaining local brands next.
Better Response to Local Needs. A local brand can bedesigned to respond to the local market’s specific needs.
Local brand products have more flexibility than interna-tional brands, so they can be developed to provide answersto local consumers’ particular needs. That is, local brandingcan not only provide a unique product but also select itspositioning and generate an advertising campaign thatreflects local insights. In contrast, an international brandmust satisfy the largest number of consumers across markets,and thus they often represent the largest common denomina-tor from both the product’s and marketing’s perspectives.
Flexibility of Pricing Strategy. Pricing strategies for localbrands can be more flexible and thus can take advantage of abrand’s strength in specific local markets. There is also norisk of parallel imports because the brand is not linked to aregional pricing strategy. Such flexibility can lead toincreased profits because prices can be fixed at higher levels.
In contrast, international brands must remain within a par-ticular pricing corridor, because comparisons can be easilymade across territories. This is especially true in Europe, fol-lowing the introduction of the Euro.
Possibility of Responding to Local or International Competi-tion. A local brand can be used to respond to local or inter-national competition or even to compete against retailerbrands. A local brand can be repositioned and the marketingmix adapted accordingly. In contrast, the marketing strategyfor an international brand must follow a predefined regionalor global marketing strategy.
Possibility of Balancing a Portfolio of Brands. An interna-tional portfolio that mostly comprises international andglobal brands can be powerful, but it also presents risks. Aproblem that arises with one mega brand in a particularcountry can have a negative impact on a worldwide basis.
This was illustrated in 1998 by the example of Coca-Cola inBelgium. Some consumers became sick after drinking a par-ticular batch of the product. The news circulated quickly andglobally, and it had a negative impact on Coca-Cola’s brandimage. The international media, including the Internet, isnow able to diffuse news and information instantly aroundthe world. Another example is the case of Perrier, which hadproblems with water purity when benzene was detected inthe product. The U.S. Perrier business has never fully recov- ered from this incident. A lesson that can be learned fromthese examples is that a brand portfolio with both stronglocal and strong international brands is in a better position tomanage risk on a worldwide basis.
Possibility of Responding to Needs Not Covered by Interna-tional Brands. To benefit from economies of scale, interna-tional brands must cover similar segments in many markets.
Profitable segments of the markets that are unique to certaincountries can still represent attractive opportunities for localbrands.
Possibility of Fast Entry into New Markets. A company thatacquires a local brand also acquires a way to enter a marketdirectly without further large investment. This strategy hasbeen used frequently in the past. For example, Inbev hasbecome the number-one brewer in the world by aggressivelyacquiring local leaders over the past ten years. Separately,interviews of international marketers revealed that stronglocal brands benefit from awareness and brand equity. Localbrands also develop close relationships with consumers overtime, which leads to a high brand trust.
It is clear that local brands also represent important disad-vantages, which by and large are linked to cost. The rela-tively small volumes of products that local brands sell pre-vent the brands from generating significant economies ofscale in the product or marketing areas.
We have noted the strategic advantages of international and Brand Equity of Local and
local brands, but it is also useful to identify the particulari- International Brands
ties of their brand equities in terms of awareness level andbrand image (Kapferer 1991; Keller 1998). The literature oninternational and global brands has provided some indica-tions of the importance of brand equity. For internationaland global brands, research shows that perceived brand glob-alness could create consumer perceptions of brand superior-ity (Kapferer 1992, 2004; Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert1994). Research also confirms that quality is among the mostimportant factors that drive consumer preference for globalbrands (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp, Batra,and Alden 2003).
In addition to quality, international and global brands havebeen associated with high prestige or status (Batra et al. 2000;Kapferer 1992). Recent empirical studies have demonstratedthat prestige is the second factor driving global brand prefer-ence (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp, Batra, andAlden 2003). In contrast, some studies have shown that con-sumers may prefer brands with local connections, and someargue that there is no intrinsic consumer preference for inter-national and global brands (De Mooij 1998).
Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer No research has been conducted on the understanding oflocal brand equity. Country-of-origin research provides somegeneral indications of brand equity on local brands, whenthe product’s country of origin is emphasized. Such studiesreveal that country of origin has an impact on consumers’evaluations of the products (Han and Terpstra 1988; Hongand Wyer 1989; Johansson, Douglas, and Nonaka 1985;Samiee 1994; Schooler 1971). Researchers have also foundthat consumers tend to evaluate local products more highlythan foreign products (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Han 1989; Kay-nak and Cavusgil 1983; Nagashima 1977; Schooler 1971),though this bias varies across consumer segments and coun-tries (Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993; Shimp and Sharma1987). Some authors have shown that consumers preferbrands that they perceive as originating from a nonlocalcountry, especially from Western countries, more than theydo local brands and that preference is linked not only to per-ceived quality but also to social status (Alden, Steenkamp,and Batra 1999).
To make use of our information sources, we next evaluate thedifference in awareness and brand image attribute, in partic- EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF
ular the attributes of quality, prestige, and trust. We con- THE Y&R DATABASE
ducted a second phase of the exploratory research on thebasis of the secondary analysis of the Y&R worldwide branddatabase Brand Asset Valuator. The original Y&R databasecovered 44 countries worldwide and 20,000 brands. Threewaves of interviews have been conducted since the databasewas created in 1993, and more than 230,000 respondentshave been surveyed to date.
From this database, we selected a sample of 12 product cate-gories in the food sector (see Table 1). They represent 744 dif-ferent brand units covering the four largest European coun-tries: the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy. Atotal of 397 brands (53%) are local, and 347 (47%) are inter-national, as Table 2 indicates. A total of 9739 people wereinterviewed from 1999 to 2000. The database is extremelyrich in terms of available data, and thus we were able to ana-lyze the data on awareness, brand image (48 image criteriawere available to consumers to evaluate each brand), andbrand usage. There were also a relatively high number ofrespondents from the total database (9739) and from thecountries under consideration (3460 from Germany [36%],2474 from the United Kingdom [25%], 1915 from France[20%], and 1890 from Italy [19%]).
We selected the food sector because it covers many productcategories that offer different levels of globalization. Forexample, the alcohol and chewing gum categories have amajority of international brands at 60% and 56%, respec-tively. In contrast, the beer and mineral water categories have Number of
(% of total)
(% of total)
(% of total)
(% of total)
a majority of local brands, at 59% and 58%, respectively,according to the database. Moreover, there are many global,international, and local players in this industry. Unilever,Nestlé, Mars, and Kraft Jacobs Suchard are good examples ofinternational and global firms, and strong local players arestill present in key local markets.
Note that though the food sector was linked fully to local tra-ditions and cultures at one time, this situation has nowchanged, as indicated by the rapid development of manyinternational brands in this sector, including Nestlé, Danone,Evian, Barilla, Nutella, and Kraft. Products that reflect localtraditions have gradually been replaced by products thatapparently satisfy the largest number of consumers. This ten-dency has also been driven by the concentration in the retail-ing industry. Logically, international brands that belong tointernational players are given preference; retailers have amajor impact on deciding which brands are displayed onsupermarket shelves.
Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer First, our analysis of the database shows that the awarenesslevel of local brands (85%) is significantly higher than that of RESULTS OF THE Y&R
international brands (73%), in confirmation of the results DATABASE
from the first phase of interviews. This points to a significantadvantage for local brands; this awareness level might berelated to the number of years that brands have been in themarket.
Second, the analysis of the brand image, based on the 48 dif-ferent brand attributes available in the database, shows thatthe perception of quality is as high for local brands as it is forinternational brands (25.3% versus 24.3%), as Table 3 indi-cates. There is no significant difference between either groupof brands. Note that of the 48 available attributes, quality isthe most important attribute selected by consumers.
Third, the image of trust is significantly stronger for localbrands than for international brands (22.1% versus 17.9%).
This also confirms the findings of the first phase of inter-views of international marketers. Trust is a key brand equityelement (Aaker 1991; Kapferer 1991); that is, brands existbecause of the trust they convey to consumers.
Fourth, value is also perceived as an important attribute forlocal brands, as is indicated by the significantly higher valuerating for local brands (18.8%) than for international brands Variables
Local Brands (%)
International Brands (%)
*Significant difference between international and local brands, p < .05.
(16.8%). This might be linked with the fact that prices oflocal brands are usually lower than those of internationalbrands, providing consumers a sense of better value for themoney.
Fifth, local brands are also perceived as more “down toearth” than international brands. This conveys the idea thatlocal brands offer a more basic/no frills brand proposition.
The study also indicates that local brands are perceived asmore traditional (15.1%) than international brands (12.7%).
This is quite logical, because local brands are linked more tolocal traditions and local cultures than international brandsare.
Sixth, the results also indicate that local brands (22.1%) ben-efit more from a significantly stronger image of reliabilitythan do international brands (17.9%). This attribute isclosely correlated in the database with the trustworthy attrib-ute, confirming this strong advantage for local brands. Theresults also indicate that there is no significant differencebetween the perception of prestige for international brands(7.4%) and that for local brands (6.9%). The relatively lowlevel of this attribute for both international and local brandsis surprising in the case of international brands, as this wasnot identified in previous research on global brands (Holt,Quelch, and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden2003).
The database also provides information on the usage of localand international brands. The results show higher ratings forlocal brands (42.9%) than for international brands (37.4%),as Table 4 indicates. Note that the usage intention figuresindicate a different pattern; ratings are slightly higher forinternational brands (47.5%) than for local brands (46.0%).
This might indicate that consumers are attracted to interna-tional brands but that, in reality, they prefer to purchase localbrands. The identified value advantage of local brands couldexplain the difference between usage and usage intention. Arelatively lower value rating for international brands couldkeep people from buying the brands they would have likedto buy.
We also conducted a factor analysis on the 48 image vari-ables and identified 9 factors. To evaluate the reasons con-sumers use local brands, we performed a regression analysiswith usage as the dependant variable; this produced a signif- Variables
Local Brands (%)
International Brands (%)
*Significant difference between international and local brands, p < .05.
Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer icant percentage of explained variance (76.9%). Two factors,trust and basic/no frills, interacted significantly with theindicator variables (local brand and international brand), at asignificance level of 5%. This confirms that consumers per-ceive local brands to be more trustworthy and to offer a morebasic/no-frills brand proposition than international brands.
For an international company, international and globalbrands provide many indisputable advantages. In the current CONCLUSION AND
context of market globalization, it is sensible for firms to MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
accelerate the development of these power brands. Becauseof their size, international and global brands create barriersto entry, benefit from having a unique image worldwide, andgenerate important economies of scale that are financiallyattractive.
However, application of a strong global marketing approachcan create risks that international marketers must consider(Schuiling 2001). International companies usually use cen-tralized strategies to develop their powerful global brands.
Therefore, such companies have less intimate relationshipswith local markets and take a long time to react to problemswhen they arise. For example, Coca-Cola changed its strategywhen it found that its structure had become too cumbersomeand that it was insensitive to local markets. In 2000, the com-pany decided to return to a more multidomestic marketingapproach and to give more freedom to local subsidiaries.
Local teams are now permitted to develop advertising tolocal consumers and, on the basis of local knowledge, caneven launch new local brands. Thus, over the past two years,local subsidiaries have launched many local brandinitiatives. Even P&G, the strong advocate of global marketing, wasforced to understand the limits of its strategy. As we men-tioned previously, in 2000 in Belgium, P&G tried to replacethe leading local and very profitable detergent Dash brandwith the European-wide Ariel brand. For nine months, P&Gdiscontinued advertising Dash, an inconceivable move forthis type of business. In the wake of this, because P&G’sresults in the detergent category were so poor, it was forcedto renew marketing support for Dash. It also reopened somelocal subsidiaries that it had closed to reduce costs. BecauseP&G had put distance between itself and the local con-sumers, its business suffered. We recommend that interna-tional firms maintain close contact with the realities of thelocal market by communicating with local experts who knowlocal consumers, even if there is an extra cost element asso-ciated with doing so.
We have also shown that, in addition to international brands,local brands can offer strategic advantages that international marketers should consider. Local brands provide firmsgreater strategic flexibility in many marketing areas. First,they offer a product that can better respond to the specificneeds of local consumers. This is in contrast to internationalbrands that must deliver a standardized product to satisfythe largest possible number of consumers. Firms can selectthe correct positioning for a specific market, taking existinglocal and international competitors into account. They canadopt specific pricing without being influenced by a globalpricing strategy. They can also introduce new marketsquickly and with minimum marketing investment throughthe acquisition of a successful local brand.
Second, local brands can help minimize the risk representedby a portfolio that contains a majority of internationalbrands. We believe that academics and practitioners have notsufficiently emphasized the need for risk management in thissituation. Therefore, we recommend that international mar-keters encourage the development of international brandportfolios that combine a balanced number of both stronglocal and international brands.
Our exploratory research on the Y&R database indicates thatlocal brands benefit from strong brand equity. In particular,local brands benefit from higher consumer awareness thaninternational brands do, and they enjoy a strong brandimage. They benefit not only from a good quality image butalso from a better value and trust perception than interna-tional brands do. We find that trust is an important advan-tage for local brands, because it provides a unique relation-ship with consumers that takes years to develop; it is notlinked to any particular level of investment. It is doubtfulthat an international brand could reproduce such a uniquerelationship with consumers, even after substantial invest-ment in marketing. Thus, we recommend that internationalmarketers leverage the advantage of trust that local brandshave succeeded in building with local consumers.
At a time when product differentiation is more difficult toachieve, strong brands are essential differentiating assets.
International firms should take into account that owningstrong local brand franchises represents a key long-termasset. Therefore, we recommend that companies not elimi-nate local brands on the basis of short-term financial consid-erations but that they consider the substantial long-termadvantage of owning brands with strong equity, even at thelocal level.
In support of this recommendation, recent examples illus-trate that some multinational firms have begun to recognizethe virtues of local brands. Through its actions, Unilever hasacknowledged that trust is essential to develop brands in the Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer food sector. In its ice cream business, Unilever has kept thebest-known local brand names, such as Miko in France,Wall’s in the United Kingdom, and Agnesi in Italy, whileglobalizing logos, products, and new concepts, such as Mag-num and Solero. Even in the traditionally globalized cos-metic business, L’Oréal has discovered that local brands havethe power to retain clients. In globalizing the U.S. May-belline brand, L’Oréal has pursued a double-branding strat-egy, in which Maybelline is the host brand and another nameis the local brand. For example, the company marketsGemey-Maybelline in France and Jade-Maybelline inGermany.
We also recommend that in their strategies, internationalfirms acknowledge the recent trends toward more regional-ism in the different parts of the world, including Europe, andaccount for the effects of the antiglobalization movement. Itmight be critical for international firms to offer more diver-sity in their brand portfolio to avoid overloading consumerswith the same international brands in all categories every-where. This is another argument for a company brand portfo-lio to maintain a balance of both strong local and interna-tional brands.
Finally, to create a source of new ideas, international compa-nies should encourage the development of new local brands.
As we mentioned previously, Coca-Cola has granted localteams the right to develop new local brands, which is a pow-erful way to generate new ideas. These new local brandscould be transformed into successful international brands ata later point. In addition, firms’ providing local marketingteams the opportunity to build local brands has an impact onthe teams’ motivation and skill level. Thus, we recommendthat international marketers encourage local teams todevelop new local brands as a source of new ideas.
In summary, if international companies eliminate stronglocal brands, they might be throwing away opportunities.
Strong local brands represent strategic advantages that areworth consideration, and they enjoy strong brand franchisesthat are real assets for any company. When brands are elimi-nated from their market, it is difficult to relaunch them suc-cessfully. Therefore, there are many reasons to encourage thedevelopment of brand portfolios that contain a balanced mixof strong local and international brands.
Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press.
——— and Erich Joachimsthaler (1999), “The Lure of Global Branding,” Harvard Business Review, 77 (November–December),137–44.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra (1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, NorthAmerica, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture,”Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87.
Bartlett, Christopher A. and Sumantra Ghoshal (1986), “Tap Your Subsidiaries for Global Reach,” Harvard Business Review, 64(November–December), 87–94.
Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana Alden, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000), “Effects of BrandLocal and Non Local Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Develop-ing Countries,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95.
Bilkey, Warren J. and Erik Nes (1982), “Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluation,” Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 89–99.
Boddewyn, Jean J., Robin Soehl, and Jacques Picard (1986), “Stan- dardization in International Marketing: Is Ted Levitt in FactRight?” Business Horizons, 29 (November–December), 68–75.
Buzzell, Robert D. (1968), “Can You Standardize Multinational Marketing?” Harvard Business Review, 46 (November–December), 102–113.
Craig, Samuel C. and Susan P. Douglas (2000), “Configural Advan- tage in Global Markets,” Journal of International Marketing, 8(1), 6–21.
De Chernatony, Leslie, Chris Halliburton, and Ratna Bernarth (1995), “International Branding: Demand or Supply DrivenOpportunity?” International Marketing Review, 12 (2), 9–21.
De Mooij, Marieke (1998), Global Marketing and Advertising.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Douglas, Susan P., Samuel C. Craig, and Edwin J. Nijssen (2001), “Integrating Branding Strategy Across Markets: Building Interna-tional Brand Architecture,” Journal of International Marketing, 9(2), 97–114.
——— and Yoram Wind (1987), “The Myth of Globalization,” Columbia Journal of World Business, 22 (Winter), 19–29.
Francis, June N.P., Janet P.Y. Lam, and Jan Walls (2002), “The Impact of Linguistic Differences on International Brand NameStandardization: A Comparison of English and Chinese BrandNames of Fortune-500 Companies,” Journal of International Mar-keting, 10 (1), 98–116.
Ger, Guliz (1999), “Localizing in the Global Village: Local Firms Competing in Global Markets,” California Management Review,41, 64–84.
Halliburton, Chris and Reinhard Hünerberg (1993), “Pan-European Marketing: Myth or Reality?” Journal of International Marketing,1 (3), 243–49.
Han, C. Min (1989), “Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 222–29.
——— and Vern Terpstra (1988), “Country of Origin Effects for Uni- National and Bi-National Products,” Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 19 (Summer), 235–55.
Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer Hassan, Salah S. and Lea Pravel Katsanis (1991), “Identification of Global Consumer Segments: A Behavioural Framework,” Journal THE AUTHORS
of International Consumer Marketing, 3 (2), 11–29.
Heslop, Louise A. and Nicolas Papadopoulos (1993), “But Who Isabelle Schuiling is a professor,
Knows Where or When: Reflections on the Images of Countries and Their Products,” in Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing, N. Papadopoulos and L. Heslop, eds. New York: International Business Press (Haworth), 39–75.
Holt, Douglas, John Quelch, and Earl Taylor (2003), “Managing the Transnational Brand: How Global Perceptions Drive Value,” Jean-Noël Kapferer is a
working paper, Harvard Business School.
Hong, Sung-Tai and Robert S. Wyer (1989), “Effects of Country-of- Origin and Product-Attribute Information Processing Perspec- tives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 175–87.
Huszagh, Sandra, Richard J. Fox, and Ellen Day (1986), “Global Marketing: An Empirical Investigation,” Columbia Journal of ACKNOWLEDGMENT
World Business, 21 (4), 31–44.
Jain, Subhash C. (1989), “Standardization of International Market- ing Strategy: Some Research Hypothesis,” Journal of Marketing, providing access to its worldwidedatabase.
Johansson, Johny K., Susan P. Douglas, and Ikujiro Nonaka (1985), “Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on Product Evalua-tions: A New Methodological Perspective,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 5 (August), 175–87.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël (1991), Strategic Brand Management. New ——— (1992), “How Global Are Global Brands?” in ESOMAR Con- ference Proceedings: The Challenge of Branding Today and inthe Future. Brussels, Belgium: ESOMAR, 199–215.
——— (2000), “In Defense of Local Brands,” Market Leader, 9 ——— (2002), “Is There Really No Hope for Local Brands?” The Journal of Brand Management, 9 (January), 48–54.
——— (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management. London and Kaynak, Erdener and S. Tamer Cavusgil (1983), “Consumer Atti- tudes Towards Products of Foreign Origin: Do They Vary AcrossProduct Classes?” International Journal of Advertising, 2 (1),147–57.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets,” Harvard Business Review, 61 (May–June), 92–108.
Nagashima, Akira (1977), “A Comparative ‘Made in’ Product Image Survey Among Japanese Businessmen,” Journal of Marketing, 41(Summer), 95–100.
Onkvisit, Sak and John J. Shaw (1989), “The International Dimen- sion of Branding: Strategic Considerations and Decisions,” Inter-national Marketing Review, 6 (3), 22–34.
Porter, Michael E. (1986), “The Strategic Role of International Mar- keting,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (Spring) 17–21.
Quelch, John A. and Edward J. Hoff (1986), “Customizing Global Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, 64 (May–June), 59–68.
Samiee, Saeed (1994), “Customer Evaluation of Products in a Global Market,” Journal of International Business Studies, (3rdQuarter), 579–604.
Schlosser, Anne-Marie (2002), “Marques locales face aux marques internationales,” paper presented at Congrès du Marketing enEurope, Paris (June 25–26).
Schooler, Robert (1971), “Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Mar- keting of Foreign Goods in the US,” Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 2 (1), 71–81.
Schuiling, Isabelle (2001), “Think Local, Act Local: Is it Time to Slow Down the Accelerated Move to Global Marketing?” Euro-pean Business Forum, 5 (Spring), 68–70.
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “Consumer Ethno- centrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280–89.
Shocker, Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava, and Robert W. Ruekert (1994), “Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Manage-ment: An Introduction to the Special Issue,” Journal of Market-ing Research, 31 (May), 149–58.
Sorenson, Ralph Z. and Ulrich E. Wiechmann (1975), “How Multi- nationals View Marketing Standardization,” Harvard BusinessReview, 53 (May–June), 38–137.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), “How Perceived Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Jour-nal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65.
Terpstra, Vern (1987), “The Evolution of International Marketing,” International Marketing Review, 4 (Summer), 47–59.
Wind, Yoram (1986), “The Myth of Globalization,” Journal of Con- sumer Marketing, 3 (Spring), 23–26.
Wolfe, Alan (1991), “The Single European Market: National of Euro-Brands,” International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 49–58.
Zhang, Shi and Bernd H. Schimitt (2001), “Creating Local Brands in Multilingual International Markets,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 38 (August), 313–25.
Reprinted with permission from Journal of International Marketing, published by the American Marketing Association.
Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: KMR Communications, Inc. P: 212.213.6444 F: 212.213.4699 WACKO JACKO: When Cosmetic Surgery Goes Too Far New York, NY February 18, 2003 – With all the recent news coverage regarding Michael Jackson’s alleged obsession with cosmetic surgery, a little known condition comes to mind: Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD). Many who have seen Michael Ja