A New Perspective of Brand

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 7 NO. 3 1998, pp. 223-243 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1061-0421 223

IntroductionThe debate on “standardization” and “globalization” of international marketscontinues unabated. Yet, a review of the literature on the subject raises thequestion of what exactly these terms mean. Even the American MarketingAssociation’s Dictionary of Marketing Terms(Bennett, 1988) does notdefine the word globalization. Furthermore, the meanings of “adaptation”and “customization” also come into question as they tend to mean theopposite of standardization and globalization. Fashionable terms such as“global standardization” do nothing but confuse readers of the marketingliterature; and nobody seems to know what phrases such as “think global actlocal” really mean.

One major problem appears to be that empirical studies do not provide asufficient theoretical basis to understand the similarities and differencesreported. It is not clear that these authors provide a definition or some degreeof measurability of what they intend to promote. This may have ledresearchers astray, rendering subsequent findings potentially misleading.Without properly defining terms like standardization and globalization, it isgoing to be difficult to build a theory of the world’s consumer market.

This paper attempts to study the definitions of standardization, globalization,adaptation, and customization as presented in the literature; and strives for apreliminary, operational definition of these terms. First, we discuss theimportance of defining marketing terminology based on general assumptionsof what marketing means to most academicians and practitioners. Next, weinclude a review of the literature on the definitions of standardization,globalization, adaptation, and customization, and provide our owndefinitions based on this analysis. We continue with our own conceptualframework of brand attribute strategies. This section analyzes theevolutionary process brands go through as they move from standardizationto globalization. Then, we follow with a summary and discussion of the newdefinitions with emphasis on standardization and globalization. Finally,ideas for future research are explored.

The assumptionsSocial science philosophers have pointed out that if a theory is to be properlytested, the researcher’s implicit assumptions which form the boundaries ofthe theory must first be understood (Weber, 1947). This notion of boundariesbased on implicit assumptions is critical because it sets the limitations inapplying the theory (Bacharach, 1989). To develop a theory of theglobalization of products from a marketing perspective, we must start by

Standardization vs globalization:a new perspective of brandstrategiesJosé F. MedinaAssistant Professor of International Marketing, Division of Managementof Marketing, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas,USAMike F. DuffyAssociate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Minot StateUniversity, Minot, North Dakota, USA

Fashionable terms

Defining markettechnology

An executive summaryfor managers andexecutives can be foundat the end of this article

delineating the boundaries of the theoretical framework within which mostmarketers operate.

The basic assumptions made by the marketing function are presented inFigure 1. These assumptions are necessary to understand the fundamentalmarketing realities of a market-driven economy. They will enable us toexamine the key influences on product strategy from the same theoreticalstandpoint; and they will allow for a critical evaluation of the theory as it isbeing constructed. When the “marketing community” considers theestablished marketing assumptions no longer adequate to explaincontemporary marketplace realities, the resulting theory will be modified aswell.

224 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 7 NO. 3 1998

The Exchange Process

Marketing creates exchangesbetween producers andconsumers by helping producersconceive a product based onconsumer information(Bennett, 1988).

The Target Market

Marketers should identify and selecta target market (or group ofconsumers), and develop andmaintain a product program thatwill satisfy it (Fennell and Saegert,1990).

The Product Concept

A product--good or service-- offering(ie., a brand) is a “bundle” of bothtangible and intangible attributesdesigned to satisfy the consumer(Kotler, 1989).

Product Design Components

Products have two designcomponents, augmented and core.Marketers help producersdetermine the nature of theattributes to be incorporated inthem (Levitt, 1980).

Diagrammatic Representation Assumptions

Augmented Product Design

CoreProductDesign

Producer

Product

Tangible and IntangibleAttributes

Consumer

TargetMarket

Producer Consumer

Marketing

Product

Figure 1. Underlying assumptions of the marketing function

Basic assumptions

The first assumption about the role of marketing goes to the heart of whatmakes it such a dynamic discipline – the exchange process. It is a widelyunderstood and accepted tenet in economics and international trade thatvoluntary commercial exchanges between parties (i.e., producers andconsumers) promote economic growth (Barth, 1997; Gwartney and Stroup,1993). The marketing function centers around the idea of creatingexchanges, whether that’s accomplished through the advertising of a productor through developing a more efficient distribution channel (Houston, 1986).The motivation for commercial exchanges rests on the principle of mutualbenefits resulting from parties acquiring differential advantages throughcompetition for resources and specialization (Ricardo, 1953).

Exchanges will not occur unless parties believe they possess something ofvalue to trade. (Producers possess goods and services and consumers possesstheir income and savings.) It is the responsibility of the marketer to help theproduction function conceive a product consumers are willing to trade theirmoney for. Marketers interact as “mediators” between production andconsumption, and the consumer will demand from the firm a product that isworth their money. Marketers also have the responsibility to learn (e.g.,through marketing research) what specific goals and benefits consumersseek. This will facilitate the creation of a product which will help producersand consumers consummate a transaction.

To increase the chances that consumers are going to value a product,consumers must be specified – identified and selected (Fennell and Saegert,1990). This is the second marketing assumption important to understand theresponsibilities of marketers. The specification of a group of consumersbegins after marketers have defined the firm’s area of expertise (i.e.,activity-domain). Defining the firm’s area of expertise involve identificationof the product category in which the firm chooses to compete and thecorresponding competitors. A group of consumers known as the targetmarket is then identified and selected based on this area of expertise. Next,demand-creating conditions affecting prospective customers are exploredwithin the focal activity – one that corresponds to the product category –such as buying a brand of toothpaste (Fennell and Saegert, 1990).Ultimately, the responsibility of the marketer is to discover customer-perceived benefits such that they are matched to specific product-categoryattributes. For example, an underlying product benefit such as “cavityprotection” should correspond to a specific product attribute such as“fluoride content”.

The third assumption about marketing is that the product is a bundle of bothtangible and intangible attributes designed to satisfy the consumer (Kotlerand Armstrong, 1993). Because the product possesses inherent attributes thatthe consumer values, the product program of the marketing mix isfoundational in strategy development. In other words, there must first exist aclear definition of the product/market relationship before any other elementof the mix can be seriously considered (Fennel and Seagert, 1990; Kotler,1989). There are at least two reasons why the product program is criticalfrom the corporate strategy standpoint. First, the marketer must decidewhether the benefits sought by the targeted consumer are already offered bythe firm’s product line. If not, the firm may need to modify its product lineby creating a new brand, or an innovation. Secondly, the marketer shouldalways be concerned with the transferability of a “tested” product programto other potential markets.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 7 NO. 3 1998 225

Creating exchanges

Designed to satisfy theconsumer

Finally, the product is the single most important factor in determiningwhether or not it is feasible for the producer to compete within the industry.Products have two key components from a design standpoint, the core andthe augmented components (Levitt, 1980). In the core component reside thekey benefit-generating attributes – tangible (e.g., taste) and/or intangible(e.g., brand image) – expected by the consumer and perceived as critical insatisfying his/her needs or wants. The product’s augmented components’attributes are subject to greater scrutiny by the consumer, as they become thedeciding factor in the purchase decision. If an existing brand belongs to amature product/market, which is the case of most brands in the market today,the brand’s core component attributes are highly similar to those ofcompetitors, leaving the marketer with the augmented attributes of theproduct to achieve differentiation. Therefore, it is the responsibility ofmarketers to:

(1) determine the brand attributes that will generate the “core” benefits,which in turn will ensure its acceptance; and

(2) determine those brand attributes that will convey “uniqueness”, which inturn influence the purchase decision (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987).

The foregoing assumptions about the nature of marketing, while notinclusive of the entire marketing function, delineate some of the most criticalresponsibilities of marketers. In an international context, marketers’responsibilities are compounded by the challenges presented by foreignenvironments (i.e., different government regulations). It appears that the keyto developing a successful international product program lies on theapplicability (or compatibility) of the product category to foreignenvironments and the firm’s ability to incorporate market differences in theproduct design. For example, consumers worldwide do not seem to haveprevious psychological attachments to soft drinks and toothpastes, as theyserve basic needs. However, the popularity of these product categories ismore likely to be linked to variations of consumer wants met by theproducers (Green et al.,1975).

The terminologyTable I shows a listing of selected articles that have been publishedregarding the concepts of standardization, adaptation, customization andglobalization. Marketing and management literatures were reviewed andsupplemented with the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate(Webster, 1971)and the 1988 American Marketing Association’s (Bennett, 1988) dictionaries(henceforth, Webster’s and AMA’s). Table I ranks in chronological order thepublications that discuss these concepts, including those that discuss Levitt’s(1983) landmark article. The following sections analyze some of the mostimportant findings from these sources.

StandardizationThe standardization argument might have been engendered in Elinder’s(1961) widely quoted article: “How international can advertising be?”. Inthis article, Elinder (1961, p. 12) argues that: “We are all moving towards auniform European style of advertising and then towards a uniformworldstyle”. It is worth noting that while Elinder did not use the word standard,the word uniform – “having always the same form, manner, or degree” – hasthe same connotation (Webster, 1973, p. 1279). A few years later, the firstand perhaps the only explicit definition of standardization in the marketingliterature was published (see Table II):


Core and augmentedcomponents

International context


Tab

le I. C

hro

no

log

ica

l lis

t o

f se

lect

ed

art

icle

s d

iscu

ssin

g s

tan

da

rdiz

atio

n, a

da

pta

tion

, cu

sto

miz

atio

n, a

nd

glo

ba

liza

tion

, a

nd

se

lect

ed

wo

rks

citin

g L

evi

tt’s

(1

98

3)

HB

Ra

rtic

le

Sel

ecte

d w

orks

citi

ng“S

tand

ardi

zatio

n”“G

loba

lizat

ion”

“Ada

ptat

ion”

“Cus

tom

izat

ion”

Levi

tt’s

(198

3) H

BR

art

icle

Elin

der

(196

1)D

avid

son

and

Har

rigan

(19

77)

Kac

ker

(197

2)Te

rpst

ra (

1981

, 198

7)S

imm

onds

(19

85)

Buz

zell

(196

8)H

out et

al.,

(198

2)B

ritt (

1974

)K

ruba

sik

(198

8)H

amel

and

Pra

hala

d (1

985)

Kee

gan

(196

9)Le

vitt

(198

3)R

onst

adt a

nd K

ram

er (

1982

)S

ugiu

ra (

1990

)F

riedm

ann

(198

6)

Rya

ns (

1969

)S

imm

onds

(19

85)

Jols

on (

1989

)W

ingo

(19

91)

Kot

ler

(198

6)

Brit

t (19

74)

Ham

el a

nd P

raha

lad

(198

5)C

avus

gil

et a

l.,(1

993)

Por

ter

(198

6)

Sor

enso

n an

d W

eich

man

n (1

975)

Por

ter

(198

6)W

ind

(198

6)

Frie

dman

n (1

986)

Win

d (1

986)

Hus

zagh

et a

l., (1

986)

Kot

ler

(198

6)D

ougl

as a

nd W

ind

(198

7)B

odde

wyn

et a

l., (1

986)

Por

ter

(198

6)Y

ip (

1989

)W

alte

rs (

1986

)

Win

d (1

986)

Ohm

ae (

1989

)O

nkvi

sit a

nd S

haw

(19

87)

Hus

zagh

et a

l.,(1

986)

Pat

el a

nd P

avitt

(19

91)

Dou

glas

and

Win

d (1

987)

Bod

dew

yn et

al.,

(198

6)B

elli

(199

1)Y

ip (

1989

)

Wal

ters

(19

86)

Noh

ria a

nd G

arcí

a-P

ont (

1991

)Ja

in (

1989

)

She

th (

1986

)P

ont (

1991

)B

aden

-Ful

ler

and

Sto

pfor

d (1

991)

Onk

visi

t and

Sha

w (

1987

)B

aden

-Ful

ler

and

Sto

pfor

d (1

991)

Müe

ller

(199

1, 1

992)

Jain

(19

89)

Gui

do (

1991

)K

anso

(19

92)

Müe

ller

(199

1, 1

992)

Sam

iee

and

Rot

h (1

992)

Kan

so (

1992

)

Sam

iee

and

Rot

h (1

992)


Tab

le II. D

efin

itio

ns

of st

an

da

rdiz

atio

n, g

lob

aliz

atio

n, a

da

pta

tion

, a

nd

cu

sto

miz

atio

n fro

m th

e m

ark

etin

g li

tera

ture

, th

e A

me

rica

n M

ark

etin

g A

sso

cia

tion

(A

MA

) a

nd

Web

ster

’s T

hird

New

Inte

rnat

iona

l Dic

tiona

ry, an

d th

e a

uth

ors

’ pro

po

sed

de

finiti

on

19

88

Am

erica

n M

ark

etin

gW

eb

ste

r’s T

hird

Ne

wA

utho

rs’

Term

sM

arke

ting

liter

atur

eA

sso

cia

tion

(A

MA

) D

ictio

na

ryIn

tern

atio

na

l Dic

tion

ary

prop

osed

def

initi

on

Sta

ndar

diza

tion:

“...t

he o

fferin

g of

id

en

tica

lpro

duct

“A s

yste

m o

f ide

ntifi

catio

n th

at“.

..to

com

pare

with

a s

tand

ard.

..to

The

pro

cess

of e

xten

ding

and

lines

at id

en

tica

lpric

es, t

hrou

ghde

scrib

es p

rodu

cts

by th

eir

brin

g in

to c

onfo

rmity

with

aef

fect

ivel

y ap

plyi

ng d

omes

ticid

en

tica

ldis

trib

utio

n sy

stem

s,qu

ality

...G

rade

labe

ling

lead

s to

stan

dard

– ‘s

omet

hing

est

ablis

hed

targ

et-m

arke

t-di

ctat

ed p

rodu

ctsu

ppor

ted

by ide

ntic

alp

rom

otio

nal

prod

uct s

tand

ardi

zatio

n an

d ea

se o

fby

aut

horit

y, c

usto

m, o

r ge

nera

lst

anda

rds

– ta

ngib

le a

nd/o

rpr

ogra

ms,

in s

ever

al d

iffer

ent

com

paris

on b

y th

e bu

yer..

.” (

p. 8

6)co

nsen

t as

a m

odel

or

exam

ple’

...”

inta

ngib

le a

ttrib

utes

– to

mar

kets

inco

untr

ies”

. (B

uzze

ll, 1

968,

p. 1

03)

(p. 1

113)

fore

ign

envi

ronm

ents

.G

loba

lizat

ion:

“glo

baliz

atio

n in

dica

tes

inte

rnat

iona

lN

one

“...t

he a

ct o

f glo

baliz

ing

– ‘to

mak

eT

he p

roce

ss o

f ado

ptin

g co

untr

y-in

tegr

atio

n. It

cau

ses

one

to v

isua

lize

wor

ldw

ide

in s

cope

and

and

targ

et-m

arke

t-di

ctat

ed p

rodu

ctfir

ms

obta

inin

g ra

w m

ater

ials

from

appl

icat

ion’

..” (

p. 4

89)

stan

dard

s –

tang

ible

and

/or

one

natio

nal m

arke

t and

fina

ncia

lin

tang

ible

attr

ibut

es –

from

capi

tal f

rom

ano

ther

, pro

duci

ngen

viro

nmen

ts a

roun

d th

e w

orld

togo

ods

with

labo

r an

d ca

pita

lac

hiev

e a

high

ly u

nifo

rm p

rodu

ct.

equi

pmen

t fro

m a

noth

er, p

rodu

cing

good

s w

ith la

bor

and

capi

tal

equi

pmen

t in

a th

ird, a

nd s

ellin

g th

efin

ishe

d pr

oduc

t in

yet o

ther

nat

iona

lm

arke

ts”.

(R

esni

ck, 1

989,

p. 3

4)A

dapt

atio

n:N

one

“The

str

ateg

y of

dev

elop

ing

new

“...a

djus

tmen

t to

envi

ronm

enta

lT

he m

anda

tory

mod

ifica

tion

ofpr

oduc

ts b

y m

odify

ing

orco

nditi

ons.

..” (

p. 1

3)do

mes

tic ta

rget

-mar

ket-

dict

ated

impr

ovin

g on

the

prod

uct

prod

uct s

tand

ards

– ta

ngib

le a

nd/o

rin

nova

tions

of o

ther

s. C

ontr

asts

inta

ngib

le a

ttrib

utes

– a

s to

mak

ew

ith th

e st

rate

gies

of p

ione

erin

gth

e pr

oduc

t sui

tabl

e to

fore

ign

and

imita

tion”

. (p.

2)

envi

ronm

enta

l con

ditio

ns.

Cus

tom

izat

ion:

Non

e“T

ailo

ring

the

prod

uct t

o th

e sp

ecia

l“.

..to

build

, fit,

or

alte

r ac

cord

ing

toT

he d

iscr

etio

nary

mod

ifica

tion

ofan

d un

ique

nee

ds o

f the

cus

tom

er.

indi

vidu

al s

peci

ficat

ions

...”

(p. 2

81)

dom

estic

targ

et-m

arke

t-di

ctat

edE

ach

buye

r is

pot

entia

lly a

uni

que

prod

uct s

tand

ards

– ta

ngib

le a

nd/o

rse

gmen

t”. (

p. 5

1)in

tang

ible

attr

ibut

es –

as

to m

ake

itec

onom

ical

ly a

nd c

ultu

rally

suita

ble

to fo

reig

n cu

stom

ers.

...the offering of identical product lines at identical prices, through identicaldistribution systems, supported by identical promotional programs, in severaldifferent countries. (Buzzell, 1968, p. 103)

Buzzell’s (1968) definition of standardization renders it close to impossibleto obtain, as all the elements of the marketing mix must be identical–“having the same cause or origin” (Webster, 1973, p. 568). This definition,however, was never challenged; but, in fact, implicitly and convenientlyaccepted by most authors (e.g., Davidson and Harrigan, 1977; Kotler, 1986;Sorenson and Wiechmann, 1975; Wind, 1986). Subsequently, and addingconfusion to the argument, numerous publications used the termstandardizationin conjunction with or in lieu of the term globalization(e.g., Boddewyn et al.,1986; Dawar and Parker, 1994; Douglas and Wind,1987; Friedmann, 1986; Guido, 1992; Jain, 1989; Kreutzer, 1988; Mueller,1991, 1992; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987; Ozsomer et al., Porter, 1986; 1991;Quelch and Hoff, 1986; Rau and Prebble, 1987; Reichel, 1989; Samiee andRoth, 1992; Sheth, 1986; Stansifer, 1989; Szymanski et al.,1993; Verhage etal., 1989; Walters and Toyne, 1989; Wind, 1986; Yavas et al.,1993).

Management-oriented business publications discuss standardization inrelation to product standards or formal agreements, such as those promotedby the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the InternationalOrganization for Standardization (ISO). For example, Bowles (1992, p. 142)defines standards as: “formal agreements that define the contractual,functional, and technical requirements to ensure that a product, service,process or system does what it is supposed to do”. Alternatively, Dilworth(1996, p. 99) understands standardization as: “having fewer choices ofcomponents and products that must be produced...(and) the use of commoncomponents in multiple models of a product...”.

The AMA (Bennett, 1988, p. 86) defines standardization as: “A system ofidentification…[and] Grade labeling…”, which it would seem refers to thecategorization of products. Webster’s Dictionary(1973, p. 1133) definesstandardizing as “to compare with a standard…to bring into conformity witha standard– ‘something established by authority, custom, or generalconsent as a model or example’.” This last definition suggests that the termstandardization can be applied to two different situations:

(1) when a standard has been “effectively applied”; or

(2) when a standard has been “achieved.”

Further, it would seem that this definition implies that a standard isestablished by an “authority” over and above the standardizing entity (e.g.,the firm).

In sum, what started as a call for uniformity on a specific marketing activity(i.e., advertising) in a specific part of the world (i.e., Europe), developed intoa fully-fledged uniformization of the marketing mix – product, price,promotion and distribution – for the whole world. Although advertisinginitially appeared to be the marketing element with greatest potential foruniformization, it is the uniformization of the product element that appealsto most marketers. In fact, definitions from management-orientedpublications, and the AMA’s dictionary link standardization to productstandards. Authority to specify agreements on these standards resides inindustry organizations with sanctioning power.

The proposed definition of standardization is as follows (see Table II):Theprocess of extending and effectively applying domestic target-market-


Definition ofstandardization

A dictionary definition

dictated product standards—tangible and/or intangible attributes—tomarkets in foreign environments.In a market-driven economy, standards(i.e., brand attributes) would be primarily dictated by the target-market“authority.” The definition implies that the circumstances and conditionsfaced by domestic consumers are similar to circumstances and conditionsfaced by consumers in foreign markets. As Levitt (1983, p. 94) puts it: “themost effective world competitors incorporate...the same kind of productssold at home or in the largest export markets.” In other words,standardization should be seen as a process that involves the creation of astandard to be appliedrather than the creation of a standard to be achieved.This is an important difference that will be clarified in the next section.

GlobalizationWe considered Levitt’s landmark article as our point of departure to examinesubsequent work on the meaning and definition of globalization. There aretwo reasons for taking this approach. First, Cavusgil and Nevin (1981) didan extensive review of the international marketing literature in the early1980s. The term globalization was nowhere to be found or even implied intheir study, indicating that the concept globalization was not relevant untilLevitt (1983) brought it up a couple of years later. Second, Levitt’s (1983)article in the Harvard Business Reviewhas been one of the most citedsources on the globalization issue (see Table I), indicating the importance ofthis article in influencing the minds of those engaged in the debate.

Levitt (1983) conveyed the idea that globalization referred to all aspects ofthe marketing mix – just what Buzzell (1968) maintained for standardization15 years earlier. This raises the initial argument of the wisdom of using anew term to convey “old” ideas. Levitt (1983) confused matters furtherwhen he went on discussing terms like “global markets”, “standardizedproducts” and “global standardization” in a random manner and withoutdefining them. Although many authors erred in the same way (e.g., Huszaghet al.,1986; Sheth, 1986; Stansifer, 1989; Verhage et al.,1989; Wind, 1986;Winski and Wentz, 1986), it was Resnick (1989) who hinted thatglobalization and standardization might mean two different things (see TableII). While his is not exactly a definition, it gives us some idea of what hethinks globalization should mean: “...international integration...[of] rawmaterials...capital...labor…and…equipment...and selling the finishedproduct in...national markets” (p. 34). Alternatively, the Webster’s (1973,p. 489) definition of globalization emphasizes: “the act of globalizing—‘tomake worldwide in scope or application’...” The AMA had not adopted adefinition of the concept as of this writing.

In sum, globalization is discussed, but never defined by Levitt (1983) andsubsequent work based on his article. It appears that the concept ofglobalization was never disassociated from that of standardization. In fact,terms like “global standardization” created some unnecessary confusion.Resnick’s (1989) implied definition of globalization rendered it as a processof integration of the factors of production from various parts of the world,which resulted in a finished product for national markets.

The proposed definition for globalization states: The process of adoptingcountry- and target-market-dictated product standards – tangible and/orintangible attributes – from environments around the world to achieve ahighly uniform product.This definition argues that a firm with globalambitions should approach the process of globalization with the idea ofadopting as many attributes as possible from the products it markets around


Influencing minds

Achieving a highlyuniform product

the world, with the idea of making them standard in a global product design.Levitt (1983, p. 94) alluded to this process when he wrote:

The global competitor will seek constantly to standardize his offering everywhere.He will digress from this standardization only after exhausting all possibilities toretain it and he will push for reinstatement of standardization whenever digressionand divergence have occurred.

Here, Levitt (1983) uses the term standardization to mean the achieving of a(world) standard, as opposed to applying a (domestic) standard. Therefore,standardization and globalization appear to be stages at the ends of anevolutionary process. This makes it imperative to incorporate the transitionstages in between them. Although adaptation and customization have bothbeen characterized as representing the opposite of either standardization orglobalization, this paper sees them rather as transition stages. The followingsections explain why.

AdaptationThe previous sections have alluded to the frequent interchangeability of theterms globalization and standardization in the marketing literature. Twoother terms that are commonly used interchangeably are adaptation andcustomization. Adaptation is generally perceived as the opposite ofstandardization (e.g., Dawar and Parker, 1994; Douglas and Wind, 1987;Friedmann, 1986; Peebles et al.,1978; Quelch and Hoff, 1986; Reichel,1989; Stansifer, 1989; Szymanski et al.,1993; Walters and Toyne, 1989;Wind, 1986) or globalization (e.g., Wills et al.,1991). While discussed bymany authors, adaptation has never been formally defined (e.g., Boddewynet al.,1986; Davidson and Harrigan, 1977; Dawar and Parker, 1994;Douglas and Wind, 1987; Friedmann, 1986; Hill and Still, 1984; Quelch andHoff, 1986; Reichel, 1989; Stansifer, 1989; Szymanski et al.,1993). Othersimilar terms that have been used in lieu of adaptation, but also neverdefined and now fallen out of usage, include “localization” (e.g., Onkvisitand Shaw, 1987; Peebles et al.,1978; Wills et al.,1991), “modification”(e.g., Sorenson and Wiechmann, 1975; Walters and Toyne, 1989),“specialization” (e.g., Müeller, 1991, 1992; Storper, 1992), and“differentiation” (e.g., Douglas and Wind, 1987; Wind, 1986).

AMA defines adaptation as: “The strategy of developing new products bymodifying or improving on the product innovations of others. Contrasts withthe strategies of pioneeringand imitation” (Bennett, 1988, p. 2). Similarly,Webster’s (1993, p. 13) definition of adaptation states: “…adjustment toenvironmental conditions.” While both definitions do not exactly convey theidea that adaptation is an opposite of standardization, they share theimplication that some form of modification to an original (standard) isrequired. A number of studies suggest that the most common type of productmodifications made by managers of international firms are usually thoseover which they have no choice (e.g., Buzzell, 1968; Hill and Still, 1984;Sorenson and Wiechmann, 1975) – in other words, modifications that cannotbe circumvented, such as a country’s labeling and packaging requirements(Hill and Still, 1984)

The proposed definition for adaptation states: The mandatory modification ofdomestic target-market-dictated product standards – tangible and/orintangible attributes – as to make the product suitable to foreignenvironmental conditions.This definition implies that the domestic firm willmost likely be obligated to change its corporate structure model to onewhich is more consistent with the changes required in the new environment.


The opposite ofstandardization

Suitable for foreignenvironmental conditions

Consider, for example, the fact that many European roads and streets arenarrow and twisting, and large American cars (such as the Cadillac and theLincoln Continental) are difficult to maneuver and impossible to use (Samli,et al.,1993). American manufacturers of large cars must realize that theirproduct cannot be marketed in Europe unless they are modified to suit localenvironmental conditions (i.e., narrow roads). This situation presumes agreater degree of involvement and flexibility on the part of the parent(domestic) company towards the local environment.

CustomizationThe idea of product customization was first brought to the academicians’attention by Terpstra (1981). He argued that the idea of product“appropriateness” was a legitimate one, in light of the fact that manydeveloping economies were eventual recipients of technology andinnovations from a handful of nations in the developed world. Furthermore,abject economic differences between these countries rendered productofferings from affluent markets inappropriate for developing marketconsumers (Terpstra, 1981). Beyond the merits of the economic disparityissue, it later became evident that marked differences in beliefs andtraditions would play an important role in the acceptance of many products(Samli et al., 1993).

The term customization is discussed but not defined by Porter (1986),Onkvisit and Shaw (1987), Krubasik (1988), Jain (1989), and Yavas et al.(1993). Other similar terms that have been used include “individualism”(Kanso, 1992) and “specificity” (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987). Neither of theseterms, however, appears to be commonly present in the literature. TheAMA’s definition of customization is: “Tailoring the product to the specialand unique needs of the customer. Each buyer is potentially a uniquesegment” (Bennett, 1988, p. 51). Webster (1973, p. 281) defines customizeas: “to build, fit, or alter according to individual specifications”.

The proposed definition of customization is as follows: The discretionarymodification of domestic target-market-dictated product standards –tangible and intangible attributes – as to make it economically andculturally suitable to foreign customers.In this definition, customizationappears to be similar to adaptation. However, there are two importantdifferences. First, adaptation relates to changes attributed to mandatoryrequirements, whereas changes in customization are optional to the firm.Secondly, because adaptation focuses on environmental conditions, changespertain primarily to tangible (or physical) attributes of the product. Incontrast, customization appears to have deeper, intangible (or non-physical)attribute implications. In some instances, economic stagnation, and localtaboos, traditions, and lifestyles, may mean “building from scratch”, ordrastically modifying a product offering.

Brand attribute strategiesFigure 2 shows a framework describing the evolutionary process in brandattribute strategies ranging from brand standardization to brandglobalization. As indicated earlier, brand attributes refer to standardsoriginating from different sources, including industries, governments, andconsumer markets. However, to the extent that an economy is market-driven, brand attributes should reflect the needs, wants, and interests ofconsumers.


Product“appropriateness”

Standards from differentsources

Brand standardization strategyGlobal trends towards technological change and modernization have induceda more accepting mindset for ideas and practices originated elsewhere. Thisis particularly true for trend-setting industries from modern societies. Theultimate challenge that a brand standardization strategy faces is to produce asingle brand the core and augmented attributes of which are tailoreddomestically, yet have international appeal. This is a product offering thatcuts across national market segments and can be produced in and/orexported from domestic facilities. The domestic target market constitutes thesole “authority” in establishing the benefit-generating attribute-standard(s) inthe resulting brand. Intuitively, this strategy should provide industries suchas toys and beverages with the greatest potential for long-term profitability.Mattel, for example, determined that there was a segment within countries


Attributes of the core andaugmented components aretailored to a domestic targetmarket but have global appeal.

Core components’ attributes arebasically the same as those of thestandardized brand. But theaugmented component attributesare modified to incorporatemandatory requirements from acountry’s environment (e.g., legalrestrictions)

Core and augmented components’attributes are tailored to a country’starget market. These attributes maybe substantially different from thoseof the standardized brand.

Adapted Brand

Standardized Brand

Core

Augmented

Core

Augmented

Customized Brand

Core

Augmented

Globalized Brand

Augmented

Core

Attributes from all the previous brandvarieties are incorporated into a“compromise brand”: a uniform corecomponent, and an augmentedcomponent containing attributes addedon to meet absolutely unique country(or regional) requirements andexpectations.

Figure 2. Evolution of brand strategies

Ultimate challenge

that was likely to respond positively to their Barbie doll’s westernphenotypical features. Interestingly, the dolls sold well withoutmodifications in 60 countries (Kotler, 1986).

Empirical evidence has also demonstrated that technology-intensiveindustries, such as scientific instruments and medical equipment, find“universal” acceptability (Cavusgil et al.,1993; Christensen et al.,1987).Brand standardization extends beyond the marketing of goods. Services suchas live entertainment, sports, and movie-making are among the most likelyto succeed with this strategy (García, 1995). For example, US entertainerMichael Jackson’s production company sold out four 100,000 seat-capacityconcerts in Mexico City’s Aztec stadium in the spring of 1994; ticket pricesranged from $15 to $120 (Fortune Magazine, 1994).

Brand adaptation strategyFor many industries the wider the global reach the greater the number ofregional and national differences they will encounter. As long as domesticenvironments remain different from foreign environments, there will alwaysbe a possibility for the need to accommodate foreign country requirements toproduct design. As members of the target market – defined in domestic marketterms – “appear” in foreign countries in increasing numbers, the domesticorganization might be compelled to change some product design attributes.Also, the domestic organization necessarily becomes more multinational inscope with greater emphasis placed in adaptingto the demands of localenvironments. These adaptations may result from unique ecological, legal,and/or infrastructural characteristics that dictate mandatory changes forcompanies wanting to operate in these countries. These adaptations translateinto the adoptionof new product standards, which will become useful to thefirm to the extent it can apply them to similar environments elsewhere.

United Parcel Service, a well-known worldwide package-delivery service,adapts its delivery vehicles to the conditions of the local environment:scooters (three-wheelers) in Taiwan, boats in Venice, and bicycles in China.However, it maintains the same core component attribute-standards on theirdelivery vehicles around the world: an easy to identify and pronounceservice logo (UPS), and recognizable, culturally-compatible colors (darkbrown and gold) (Czinkota and Ronkainan, 1995).

Brand customization strategyBrand customization represents an “extreme” case of brand adaptation.Beyond the mandatory requirements for brand adaptation, brandcustomization involves discretionary changes that are made by theorganization to please the foreign market. Discretionary changes result fromstudying local consumer behavior: how the product is used, how often it isused, where it is purchased, how it is purchased, etc. Brand customizationheightens its importance in foreign environments where consumers havegreater freedom to choose products and more products to choose from.However, negative perceptions of the product category in taste, style, orquality can in fact “kill” the market for brands which might otherwise beadaptable — meet mandatory requirements (Terpstra, 1981). While trying tomeet local customer idiosyncratic perceptions might lead to the adoption ofmany new attribute-standards, the core and augmented components will stillmaintain attributes from the domestic target market.

Consider perceptions regarding colors, which are very important toconsumers in Poland. Poles don’t go shopping for a brand-name toothbrush,


“Universal” acceptability

An “extreme” case ofbrand adaptation

they want the red one (Business Week,1993). Consider perceptionsregarding “sensorial touch”; most Americans prefer to drink an ice-coldbeer, while British prefer to drink it nearer room temperature (Britt, 1974).Most Mexicans do not perceive important differences in taste and pricebetween Coke and Pepsi, yet most of them prefer to drink Coke on specialoccasions because of its reputation (Möller, 1993).

Brand globalization strategySome industries and organizations have reached almost every corner of theworld as part of their product-line evolutionary process. For some of thesefirms, the process has been opportunistic and haphazard (Jeannet andHennessey, 1995). For most, the process involves the conception of a“compromise product” which combines, in its core, attribute-standards thatare acceptable to customers around the globe. This organization focuses onpleasing the “global consumer” rather than the individual (e.g., domestic)country-market consumers. Unlike brand customization, firms using thisstrategy would hardly contemplate “building from scratch” anymore. Likebrand standardization, they are interested in applying standards, except thattheir goal is to apply a world standard, not apply a domestic one. Once it isdetermined what common benefits (i.e., core attributes) are shared by mostpeople around the world in the product category, specific brands (withdifferentiated augmented components) will be developed to cater to country-market idiosyncrasies.

After being the consummate customizer around the world, Black & Decker(B&D) decided to listen closer to the core benefits – a good drill at lowprices – sought by their global customers. As a result, B&D globallystandardized 50 models down from several hundred and standardized worldproduction in fewer strategically-located countries. This new globalizedproduct line appealed to more cross-national market segments (Fortune,1984). Similarly, Procter & Gamble (P&G) pared down its product linesaround the world to find simpler, fit-all designs for a global customer. Theworld does not need 52 versions of Crest or 31 varieties of Head andShoulders (Business Week,1996).

Summary and discussionIn light of the extensive debate over standardization and globalization, thisstudy investigated whether these terms had been defined in the literature;and, if defined, whether these definitions were appropriate for marketing.With the exception of one article (Buzzell, 1968), none of the articles studiedmade an explicit attempt to define any of these concepts. Based on widelyaccepted assumptions on the role of marketing in the organization,definitions found in the literature were considered inappropriate. In fact, theimplied definitions of standardization and globalization are so similar thatthe marketing “community” faces a dilemma. They could argue for droppingone of these terms out of the literature; or they could argue for a cleardichotomy of meanings between them. We opted for the second choice.Because standardization and globalization could not be adequately“redefined” without also addressing adaptation and customization, all fourterms were examined and redefined.

The new definitions lead to the development of a brand strategies frameworkwith an emphasis on the attributes of the product and their effect on the coreand augmented components. Findings suggest that standardizationandglobalizationbe applied to product strategies aiming to specify key attribute-


Pleasing the “globalconsumer”

Definitions consideredinappropriate

standards that go into the core and augmented components of the brand. Inthe process of creating these brands, marketers should become globallyaware of production constraints in the industry and maintain an intimatecommunication with the target markets they intend to serve. Therefore, itwould also seem that market research plays a pivotal role in identifying theunderlying benefits that consumers seek and in understanding the specificcircumstances in which product categories are used.

If the brand is created for a domestic consumer segment, but has globalappeal, we have termed that strategy brand standardization. Levitt (1983)himself alluded to this strategy when he wrote: “the world is becoming morealike and hungers for technology and everything that is modern” (p. 95).This strategy is based on the principle that industries (and firms) withincountries should exploit their (“natural”) comparative advantages. Pursuingbrand standardization is even more compelling for developed marketeconomies as “world consumers” typically view their products morefavorably (Samiee, 1994). Firms and industries in countries like Japan andthe US may enjoy cultural and technological comparative advantages asperceived by groups of global consumers. Such may the case of the movie-making industry in the US and the electronics industry in Japan (Narayana,1981; Porter, 1990).

A brand standardization strategy relies on the standards developed in thedomestic target market. The domestic organization conceives brands fordomestic customers first and foremost. As a result, we have argued thatbrand standardization is the most profitable strategy to follow. Organizationsdo not have to invest as much in marketing research outside their domesticenvironment. The overriding strategy question would be: Why make theproduct elsewhere, if consumers prefer it made (or enjoyed) in the country oforigin?

While creating powerful images around a single brand makes a lot of senseand provides leverage for positioning your company and your products(Crainer, 1995), a standardized brand strategy program will always provideunique challenges for the domestic firm with global aspirations. In a veryreal sense, corporations are not just marketing themselves and their products,but ideas, concepts, and practices that are bound to their domestic cultures.In some instances, fundamental changes in behavior and lifestyles resultfrom the marketing of these products (Terpstra, 1987). Thus, localgovernments and markets may erect “natural barriers” to the marketing ofthese products. These can be overcome through adaptation andcustomization of the product. To the extent that domestic and foreignenvironments are different, domestic organizations should expect theirproducts to be modified to meet unique local environmental requirementsand market expectations.

Can firms develop a “globally standardized” product in the context impliedby Levitt (1983)? The answer is a resounding Yes! It means pursuing abrand strategy where the goal is to achieve uniformity (of standards) in keybrand attributes worldwide. These key attribute-standards become part of thecore modular design in a global brand. Differences that cannot be reconciledacross markets are brought into the fold as unique attributes in theaugmented component of the brand. Companies such as Black & Decker andProcter & Gamble have benefited from this strategy.

Assuming a brand globalization strategy, the phrase “think global act local”takes on a more concrete meaning. Corporate marketers should focus on


The domestic market

Achieving uniformity ofstandards

developing global efficiencies in upstream activities such as procurement,manufacturing, research and development, and brand design. Meanwhile,country marketers are responsible for custom-focused functions such as thedefinition of the firm’s activity-domain, the product category, thecompetitors, and consumer behavior, all for the local market. Marketresearch is aimed at determining the brand attributes that must be relayed toheadquarters for “brand globalization.” The idea of this strategy is to reduce“brand customization” as much as possible through the incorporation ofattribute-standards from around the world.

The key strategy question for the brand strategy framework developed hereis simply: Does the target market the firm chooses to produce fordomestically extend across national boundaries? If not, the firm can pursueconsumer segments in other countries which it might address profitablythrough the adaptation, customization, or globalization of its brands. If yes,then the domestic firm should actively identify and select those cross-country market segments that may respond positively to the domesticproduct strategy.

Future researchThe mediating role marketers play between production and consumptionappears to lean heavily toward the consumption side of the equation. Thishas left the marketing “community” with little knowledge about the needsmarketers have in understanding the production challenges the firm faces.Sheth (1986) alluded to this problem only marginally when he wrote: “therehas been an increasing degree of international standardization of productquality and safety standards...and... (marketing) managers need to keepabreast of (these) changes...” (p. 9). To the extent that the sources of supplyof the tangible (physical) attributes of the brand can be anticipated (e.g.,component parts presently used in other products, components which arestandard for a supplier, etc.), marketers can increase their chances ofsuccessfully developing, implementing, and controlling a global productstrategy program. At a minimum, marketers should be aware of internationalstandards of quality in manufacturing. Future research should focus oninvestigating the interface that exists between marketers and productionand/or procurement managers.

It has been stressed elsewhere, and confirmed in the present work, thatmarketing is not the center around which the company evolves (e.g., Porter,1986; Quelch and Huff, 1986; Wind, 1986). The proposed framework,however, offers a fresh look at the potential impact of marketing activities onother business functions during the learning curve process. In other words,as companies decide to target markets in foreign environments, theorganizational structure of the company will suffer changes resulting fromthe decisions to adapt, customize, and globalize brands to these newenvironments. Future research efforts should investigate, in aninterdisciplinary fashion, the impact of changes in the organizationalstructure as the firm moves “global”.

Future studies should also investigate if tracking world trade patterns mayhelp uncover opportunities for product standardization strategies in majorproduct categories. Some product categories that have shown worldwideappeal include cigarettes (Gillespie and Alden, 1989) and beer (Morrisonand Roth, 1992). On the consumer side, it would be interesting to see howrising consumer expectations – good quality at low prices (Ohmae, 1989) –throughout the world homogenizes mental frames of reference. This is


Aware of internationalstandards

Changes in theorganizational structure

particularly important in light of the integration of emerging nations’consumers to the world economy. These consumers traditionally placegreater value on prices at the expense of quality (Lynn, 1991).

References

Bacharach, S.B. (1989), “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation,” Academy ofManagement Review,Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515.

Baden-Fuller, C. and Stopford, J. (1991), “Globalization frustrated: the case of white goods,”Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 12, pp. 493-507.

Barth, S. (1997), “Free to trade – is economic freedom an important criterion for internationalbusiness?,” World Trade,January, pp. 26-9.

Belli, P. (1991), “Globalizing the rest of the world,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 4,pp. 50-1.

Bennett, P. (1988), Dictionary of Marketing Terms,American Marketing Association, Chicago,IL.

Boddewyn, J., Soehl, R. and Picard, J. (1986), “Standardization in international marketing: isTed Levitt in fact right?”, Business Horizons,November-December, pp. 69-75.

Bowles, J. (1992), “Global connections: the quest for worldwide standardization”(advertisement), and “International standardization: the cornerstone of globalcompetitiveness” (advertisement), Fortune,Vol. 124 No. 11, pp. 133-42, 185.

Britt, S. (1974), “Standardizing marketing for the international market,” The Columbia Journalof World Business,Vol. 9, Winter, pp. 39-45.

Business Week Magazine(1993), “Colgate-palmolive is really cleaning up in Poland,” 15March, p. 36.

Business Week Magazine(1996), “Make it simple – that’s P&G’s marketing mantra – and it’sspreading,” 9 September, pp. 96-104.

Buzzell, R. (1968), “Can you standardize multinational marketing?,” Harvard BusinessReview,Vol. 46, November-December, pp. 102-13.

Cavusgil, S. and Nevin, J. (1981), “The state of the art in international marketing: anassessment,” in Enis, B. and Roering, K. (Eds), Review of Marketing,AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Cavusgil, S., Zou, S. and Naidu, G. (1993), “Product and promotion adaptation in exportventures: an empirical investigation,” Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 24No. 3, pp. 479-506.

Christensen, C., da Rocha, A. and Gertner, R. (1987), “An empirical investigation of thefactors influencing exporting success of Brazilian firms,” Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies,Vol. 18, Fall, pp. 61-77.

Cooper, R. and Kleinschmidt, E. (1987), “New products: what separates winners from losers,”Journal of Product Innovation Management,No. 4, pp. 169-84.

Crainer, S. (1995), The Real Power of Brands – Making Brands Work for CompetitiveAdvantage,Piton Publishing, London.

Czinkota, M. and Ronkainan, I. (1995), International Marketing, The Dryden Press, NewYork, NY.

Davidson, W. and Harrigan, R. (1977), “Key decisions in international marketing: introducingnew products abroad,” Columbia Journal of World Business,Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 15-23.

Dawar, N. and Parker, P. (1994), “Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name, price,physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality,” Journal ofMarketing,Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 81-95.

Dilworth, J. (1996), Operations Management,(2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill Publications, NewYork, NY.

Douglas, S. and Wind, Y. (1987), “The myth of globalization,” Columbia Journal of WorldBusiness,Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 19-29.

Elinder, E. (1961), “How international can advertising be?”, The International Advertiser,Vol. 2, December, pp. 12-16.

Fennell, G. and Saegert, J. (1990), “Activity v. a priori groups in defining a market,”Proceedings of the Society of Consumer Psychology, American PsychologicalAssociation, Boston, MA.

Fortune Magazine(1984), “Black & Decker’s gamble on ‘globalization’”, 14 May, pp. 40-8.


Fortune Magazine(1994), “The big rise – middle classes explode around the globe, bringingnew markets and new prosperity”, 30 May, pp. 74-90.

Friedmann, R. (1986), “Psychological meaning of products: a simplification of thestandardization vs. adaptation debate,” Columbia Journal of World Business,Vol. 20No. 2, pp. 97-104.

García, N. (1995), Consumidores y Ciudadanos – Conflictos Multiculturales de laGlobalización,Editorial Grijalvo, México.

Gillespie, K. and Alden, D. (1989), “Consumer product export opportunities to liberalizingLDCs: a life-cycle approach,” Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 93-112.

Green, R., Cunningham, W. and Cunningham, I. (1975), “The effectiveness of standardizedglobal advertising,” Journal of Advertising,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 25-30.

Guido, G. (1992), “What US marketers should consider in planning a pan-Europeanapproach,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 29-33.

Guisinger, S. (1992), “Globalization of service multinationals in the “Triad” regions: Japan,Western Europe and North America,” Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 675-96.

Gwartney, J. and Stroup, R. (1993), What Everyone Should Know about Economics andProsperity, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, TX.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1985), “Do you really have a global strategy?”, Harvard BusinessReview,Vol. 63, July-August, pp. 139-48.

Hill, J. and Still, R. (1984), “Adapting products to LDC tastes,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 92-101.

Houston, F. (1986), “The marketing concept: what it is and what it is not,” Journal ofMarketing,Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 81-7.

Hout, T., Porter, M. and Rudden, E. (1982), “How global companies win out,” HarvardBusiness Review,Vol. 60, September-October, pp. 98-108.

Huszagh, S., Fox, R. and Day, E. (1986), “Global marketing: an empirical investigation,”Columbia Journal of World Business,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 31-43.

Jain, S. (1989), “Standardization of international marketing strategy: some researchhypotheses,” Journal of Marketing,Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 70-9.

Jeannet, J. and Hennessey, H. (1995), Global Marketing Strategies,Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston, MA, p. 261.

Jolson, M. (1989), “Canned adaptiveness: a new direction for modern salesmanship,” BusinessHorizons,January-February, pp. 7-12.

Kacker, M. (1972), “Patterns of marketing adaptation in international business: a study ofAmerican business firms operating in India,” Management International Review,Vol. 12No. 5, pp. 111-18.

Kanso, A. (1992), “International advertising strategies: global commitment to local vision,”Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 10-14.

Keegan, W. (1969), “Multinational product planning: strategic alternatives,” Journal ofMarketing,Vol. 33, January, pp. 58-62.

Kotler, P. (1986), “Global standardization – courting danger,” The Journal of ConsumerMarketing,Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 13-15.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1993), “Principles of marketing”, (sixth ed.), Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 276-77.

Kreutzer, R. (1988), “Marketing-mix standardisation: an integrated approach in globalmarketing,” European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 19-30.

Krubasik, E. (1988), “Customize your product development,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 66 No 6, pp. 46-52.

Levitt, T. (1980), “Marketing success through differentiation – of anything,” Harvard BusinessReview,Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 92-102.

Levitt, T. (1983), “The globalization of markets,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 61 No. 3,pp. 92-102.

Lynn, R. (1991), The Secret of the Miracle Economy: Different National Attitudes toCompetitiveness and Money,The Social Affairs Unit, London.

Möller, H. (1993), “Hábitos del consumidor Mexicano,” Entrepreneur, pp. 22-6.

Morrison, A. and Roth, K. (1992), “A taxonomy of business-level strategies in globalindustries,” Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 13, September, pp. 339-418.


Müeller, B. (1991), “An analysis of information content in standardized vs. specializedmultinational advertisements,” Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 23-39.

Müeller, B. (1992), “Standardization vs. specialization: an examination of westernization inJapanese advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-24.

Narayana, C. (1981), “Aggregate images of American and Japanese products: implications forinternational marketing,” Columbia Journal of World Business,Vol. 16, Summer, pp. 31-5.

Nohria, N. and García-Pont, C. (1991), “Global strategic linkages and industry structure,”Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 12, pp. 105-24.

Ohmae, K. (1989), “Managing in a borderless world,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 67No. 3, pp. 152-61.

Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. (1987), “Standardized international advertising: a review and criticalevaluation of the theoretical and empirical evidence,” Columbia Journal of WorldBusiness,Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 43-55.

Ozsomer, A., Bodur, M. and Cavusgil, S. (1991), “Marketing standardisation by multinationalsin an emerging market,” European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 50-64.

Patel, P. and Pavitt, K. (1991), “Large firms in the production of the world’s technology: animportant case of ‘non-globalization’”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 22No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Peebles, D., Ryans, J. Jr and Vernon, I. (1978), “Coordinating international advertising,”Journal of Marketing,January, pp. 28-34.

Porter, M. (1986), “The strategic role of international marketing,” Journal of ConsumerMarketing,Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 17-21.

Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations,Free Press, New York, NY.

Quelch, J. and Hoff, E. (1986), “Customizing global marketing,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 59-68.

Rau, P. and Preble, J. (1987), “Standardization of marketing strategy by multinationals”,International Marketing Review,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 18-28.

Reichel, J. (1989), “How can marketing be successfully standardised for the Europeanmarket?”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 60-7.

Resnick, B. (1989), “The globalization of world financial markets”, Business Horizons,November-December, pp. 34-41.

Ricardo, D. (1953), “The principles of political economy and taxation”, in Sraffa, P. (Ed.), TheWorks and Correspondence of David Ricardo,Cambridge University Press, New York,NY.

Ronstadt, R. and Kramer, R. (1982), “Getting the most out of innovation abroad,” HarvardBusiness Review,Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 94-9.

Ryans, J. Jr (1969), “Is it too soon to put a tiger in every tank?”, Columbia Journal of WorldBusiness,Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 69-75.

Samiee, S. (1994), “Customer evaluation of products in a global market”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies,Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.

Samiee, S. and Roth, K. (1992), “The influence of global marketing standardization onperformance”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 1-17.

Samli, C., Still, R. and Hill, J. (1993), International Marketing – Planning and Practice,Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.

Sheth, J. (1986), “Global markets or global competition”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 9-26.

Simmonds, K. (1985), “Global strategy: achieving the geocentric ideal”, InternationalMarketing Review,Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 8-17.

Sorenson, R. and Wiechmann, U. (1975), “How multinationals view marketingstandardization”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 38-54.

Stansifer, M. (1989), “Cross-national consumer behavior: the standardization of marketingefforts”, dissertation, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.

Storper, M. (1992), “The limits to globalization: technology districts and international trade”,Economic Geography,Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 60.

Sugiura, H. (1990), “How Honda localizes its global strategy”, Sloan Management Review,Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 77-82.


Szymanski, D., Bharadwaj, S. and Varadarajan, P. (1993), “Standardization versus adaptationof international marketing strategy: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 1-17.

Terpstra, V. (1981), “On marketing appropriate products in developing countries”, Journal ofInternational Marketing,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-15.

Terpstra, V. (1987), International Marketing,The Dryden Press, Hinsdale. IL.

Verhage, B., Dahringer, L. and Cundiff, E. (1989), “Will a global marketing strategy work?:An energy conservation perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol.17 No. 2, pp. 129-36.

Walters, P. (1986), “International marketing policy: a discussion of the standardizationconstruct and its relevance for corporate policy,” Journal of International BusinessStudies,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 55-69.

Walters, P. and Toyne, B. (1989), “Product modification and standardization in internationalmarkets: strategic options and facilitating policies,” Columbia Journal of World Business,Vol. 24, Winter, pp. 37-44.

Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations,Oxford UniversityPress, New York, NY.

Webster’s Dictionary (1973), Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Philippines.

Wills, J., Samli, A. and Jacobs, L. (1991), “Developing global products and marketingstrategies: a construct and a research agenda,” Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience,Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Wind, Y. (1986) “The myth of globalization,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 3 No. 2,pp. 23-6.

Wingo, W. (1991), “Products that cater to foreign tastes,” Design News,Vol. 47 No. 13, pp. 90-4.

Winski, J. and Wentz, L. (1986), “Parker pen: what went wrong?”, Advertising Age,Vol. 57No. 33, pp. 1, 60-1, 71.

Yavas, U., Verhage, B. and Green, R. (1993), “Global consumer segmentation versus localmarket orientation: empirical findings,” Management International Review,Vol. 32, pp. 265-72.

Yip, G. (1989), “Global strategy. . . in a world of nations?,” Sloan Management Review,Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-41.

■


Executive summary and implications for managers andexecutives

International brand marketing made simple (well almost)Medina and Duffy provide an extremely valuable service to marketers here –they give us definitions of some terms that we use widely without necessarilyappreciating what we mean by them. Terms such as “standardization”,“globalization”, “adaptation” and “customization” crop up throughoutmarketing literature – whether academic research or practitioner-orientedwriting. Yet, as Medina and Duffy report, the terms are surrounded byconfusion, contradiction and dual meaning.

The difference between globalization and standardization described byMedina and Duffy provides us with the ability to assess our internationalmarketing activity on the basis of a clear strategic understanding ratherthan (the regrettable) tendency of marketers to use the words because theysound good. Let’s face it, we all prefer the word globalization because itsounds like the sort of thing our business should be heading towards. But, inMedina and Duffy’s terms, our globalization strategy could well be merelystandardization – rather than pulling together brand attributes or standardsfrom “environments around the world” we are, in fact, applying ourdomestic standards to foreign markets unchanged.

Having defined the terms, Medina and Duffy go one stage further byidentifying four principal international marketing strategies – brandstandardization, brand adaptation, brand customization and brandglobalization. This simple framework of strategic options for internationalmarketing allows us to appreciate just what it is we are doing with ourstrategy and what actions might relate best to the choice made. The strategythat might have been labelled “globalization” may turn out to be a brandstandardization approach. And our localized strategy may be betterunderstood with the tag of brand adaptation or brand customization.

This leads us, as practical marketers, to the vexed question of which optionwe choose. Central to this choice is the information needed to make the rightdecision. Too often our brand decisions relate more to convenience orprejudice rather than a rational evaluation of the different approaches opento the business. As Medina and Duffy point out, there can be no substitutefor good market research prior to embarking on international brandingdecisions.

However, since we’re faced with a framework of international brandstrategies based on new definitions of the principal elements and optionsimplicit in such activities, I can’t resist making some observations aboutwhen firms might employ the different strategies identified by Medina andDuffy.

Brand standardizationI get the impression that brand standardization – as defined here – is ratherout of vogue these days. The approach taken by the big Americanmultinational consumer goods businesses – Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble,McDonald’s – has been characterized as marketing imperialism paying littleor no heed to cultural variations, local traditions and national sentiments.Indeed the fact that a “Big Mac” is the same wherever you buy it ledbusiness magazine, The Economist,to use the product as the basis of itspurchasing power parity calculations.


This summary has beenprovided to allowmanagers and executivesa rapid appreciation ofthe content of thisarticle. Those with aparticular interest in thetopic covered may thenread the article in toto totake advantage of themore comprehensivedescription of theresearch undertaken andits results to get the fullbenefit of the materialpresent

In the case of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, the brand reflects certaincultural values – chiefly American values. To take these elements out of thebrand would cause too many problems (and probably damage) to be worthconsideration. Similarly, smaller brands with close and positive culturalassociations to their home country can take advantage of these links throughstandard international branding.

Brand adaptationMedina and Duffy define adaptation as resulting from unavoidable changesto branding. You don’t change the brand because it seems like a good ideabut because not to do so would be illegal or stupid. Thus, GM didn’t launchits European small car in Spain as the Nova since that means “doesn’t go”in Spanish.

Adaptation therefore is forced upon us in order to develop a given foreignmarket. However, these forced changes may provide a route towards aglobalized brand strategy since we reach a position where new productstandards adopted to meet, say, German packaging regulations, can providea benefit in other markets as well.

Brand customizationHere the change results from market idiosyncrasy rather than regulatory orenvironmental requirements. Such changes may result from cultural oddities(why do Poles buy red toothbrushes?) or factors relating to eating habitsand so on.

What we have is essentially the same product with changes made to that coreproduct to suit the oddities of a local market. We might change the colour ofthe packaging, the taste, the ambience or the size of package. In doing so weshould, however, try to minimise changes so as to sustain the advantages ofmass production.

Brand globalizationThere are very few genuinely global businesses. These are firms where theoriginal national associations have been lost in the minds of consumers.Coca-Cola isn’t really a global business because nobody doubts theAmerican associations of the brand. But Procter & Gamble is since itsbrands do not have national associations. For UK consumers, Ford isvirtually a native brand – the cars are made in the UK and have been forvery many years. Furthermore, certain Ford brands of the past became iconsas a result of their success.

Medina and Duffy’s article provides a good deal of clarity by setting outsimple and distinct definitions of important terms. Moreover, the resultingstrategic framework provides the basis for international marketing planningand guidance to those wishing to investigate international brand strategies.I’m sure we will see this new clarity improve the standard of research andpractice in this important field.

(A précis of the article “Standardization vs globalization: a new perspectiveof brand strategies”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCBUniversity Press.)


Documents

A New Perspective of Brand