Real Differences between Local and International Brands: Strategic Implications for

International Marketers
Author(s): Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Nol Kapferer
Source: Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4 (2004), pp. 97-112
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25048993 .
Accessed: 02/12/2014 09:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of International Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Executive
Insights:
Real Differences Between Local and International
Brands: Strategic Implications
for International
Marketers

In the current

context

of globalization,

their efforts on the development

international

result,

brand

have

firms
have

portfolios

ABSTRACT

concentrated

brands. As a

of international
been

restructured,

and many successful local brands have been eliminated. This

article's objective is to improve the understanding
of local
brand differences and competitive advantages relative to inter
national

To achieve

brands.
& Rubicam

Young

ined more

the
reanalyzed
Valuator
and exam

Asset

than 744 brands across the four largest countries in

the United

Europe:

the authors

this,
Brand

database

authors discuss
international

as

marketers

their

develop

The

Italy.

of the findings for

implications

they

and

France,

Germany,

Kingdom,

themanagerial

interna

ideal

tional brand portfolios.

Consistent

current

with

national

have

companies

in globalization,
many
a multidomestic
from

trends
moved

inter
mar

keting approach to a global marketing approach. This move

to global marketing
has had a major impact on company
the past
their

strategies.
During
concentrated
have

branding

companies
ment
of international

For

brands.

few

international

years,
on
efforts

Isabelle Schuiling
and Jean-No?l
Kapferer

the develop
is in the
Unilever

example,

process of eliminating 1200 brands from its brand portfolio

to concentrate on 400 brands. Procter & Gamble (P&G) has
300

kept

after

brands,

of

many

selling

its

local

L'Or?al has built its success on 16 worldwide

has

given

In this

context,
brands
brands

portfolios.

firms'
has
have

This

consumer

moving
of industry,

focus

on

been

found not only

trend has been

sector

goods

including

but

represents

in many

also

insurance,

banking,

level

developed

of awareness

close

in their

relationships

and
this represents
years,
their home markets.

solid

oil,

the elimination

a lost opportunity

in the fast
other

and

countries.

with

compa

benefited

from a

Consumers

have

local brands

marketing

types

retailing.

of these local

for international

nies. Strong local brands have traditionally

high

in

of interna
the development
on local brands.
impact
from
international
brand

a negative
eliminated

had

Itmight be questioned whether

brands

includ

brands,

names.

global

Many

worldwide

and Mars has invested mainly

and Buitoni,

brand

tional

to its 6 strategic

priority

ing Nescafe

brands.

brands. Nestl?

Submitted

over the

investment

in

Accepted

December
July 2004

2003

? Journal of International
Marketing
Vol. 12, No. 4, 2004, pp. 97-112
ISSN 1069-03IX

97

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Both academics and practitioners have focused on the devel

and global brands (Boddewyn,
opment of international
and
Picard
Buzzell
1986;
1968; Craig and Douglas
Soehl,
2000; Levitt 1983; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Wind 1986). As
such, little work has been done to study the specifics of local
brands.

Several

articles

have

mentioned

the

of

existence

local brands (de Chernatony, Halliburton, and Bernarth 1995;

Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001; Halliburton and H?nerberg
1993; Kapferer 2000, 2002), but no in-depth research has
been

on

conducted

national

success

their

that of inter

with

compared

and global brands.

international

However,

confront

managers

difficult

questions

when

the ideal international

brand portfolio
developing
must
and
decide not
Nijssen 2001). They
(Douglas, Craig,
to
how
international
build
their
brands
but
also which
only
local

to build, which
to eliminate,
which
an international
to assimilate
under

brands

even which

These
any

are important

it is particularly

to develop

useful

of local brands

standing

that significantly

influence

success.

company's

Therefore,
the

decisions

to sell, and
name.

brand

further

to international

relative

under

in

brands

con
context.
To achieve
this, we
globalization
covers
two
research
that
The
first
phases.
exploratory
of
interviews
consisted
with
international
marketers,

current

ducted

phase
and the

second

(Y&R's)

Young
Asset
Valuator.

an
of
analysis
Brand
database,

involved

phase

& Rubicam's

conducting
extensive
brand

Our objective in this article is to better understand

the real
differences between local and international brands. We first
recent

discuss

and identify

development
brands

on

perspectives

compared

with

and

local

international

brand

the strategic advantages

international

We

brands.

of local

then

evalu

ate the differences in brand equity between local and inter

national brands. Last, we conclude by highlighting the impli
cations
We

Perspectives

and

on Local

International

Brand

Development

of these

define

local

in a limited
may

international

as brands

brands

geographical
to a local,

belong

for international

findings

keting strategy and mix

Development

been

or

or mix.

global

country

firm. We

of research

In a more

as brands

or

for more

the

define

elements

radical

that use

in all target markets

The debate on global marketing

Brand

in one

brands as brands that have globalized

the marketing
strategy
are defined
brands
global

Global

exist

that

area (Wolfe 1991). Such brands

international,

of

a subject

marketers.

same

sense,
mar

(Levitt 1983).

is not new, and the topic has

than

30 years

(Boddewyn,

Soelh, and Picard 1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas

2000; Douglas and Wind 1987; Huszagh, Fox, and Day 1986;
Jain 1989; Levitt 1983; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Sorenson and
98 Isabelle

Schuiling

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Kapferer

Wiechmann

The

1975).

to

of moving

advantages

interna

tional and global brands under a global marketing

strategy
have frequently been emphasized
(Aaker and Joachimsthaler
1999; Buzzell
1968; Kapferer
1992, 2004; Levitt 1983;
Onkvisit and Shaw 1989).
A key advantage
benefit

from

development,

name

brand

global

also

to

is firms' opportunity
It is well-known

of scale.

can generate
significant
of the business
system,
including
and
manufacturing,
logistics.

areas

single

economies

strong
brand

a standardized
in all

of globalization

cost

reductions
and

research
shift

The

substantial

provides

that

to a
in

savings

costs (Bartlett and Ghoshal

packaging and communication
1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas 2000; Levitt 1983;
Porter

Multinational
1986).
economies
of scale

these

tages in worldwide
formance.
brand

reduce

prices
is the development
It is especially
whose

categories,
product
of consumers,

segments

the

1991).

to market
for new product
speed
tional brands
offer is also important
can now

which

consumer

fast-moving
scale within

goods
12 to 18 months.

when

time

brand

strategies

is the possibility

advantage
with

that

initiatives

interna

for international

new

compa
in the

initiatives

product
on a regional
or
industry
global
more
a
Such
takes much
cycle
are not
Another
globalized.

any global brand

of supporting

area.

in the communications

large budgets

cially

launch

per
of a unique

in
important
worldwide
target
affluent
and teenager

The

nies,

1987). Such
financial

brands

as

such

and Katsanis

(Hassan

segments

enhance

advantage
across
countries.

leveraged
advan

competitive

(Douglas and Wind

and

Another
image

certain

markets

in costs

reductions

have

corporations
to gain major

is espe

This

in the context of very high advertising

important

and

costs.

media

we

However,

note

supply-driven

In most

considerations.
been

reason

the primary
An

1987).

the

toward

push

consumer

cases,

for companies

and global brands

international
stra

that

of

development

and global brands has been driven more by

considerations
linked to costs than by market

international

example

of

an

has not
preference
to
to decide
to move

(Kapferer 1991, 2004; Terp

firm

international

that

has

of global brands since the early

accelerated its development
1990s is P&G. Its objective has been to achieve competitive
in its markets.

advantage

a strategy include
costs

reduced
not

surprising

proponent

announced
tions.

was
Local

The

The

significant

benefits

that

economies

accrue

from

such

of scale that lead to

It is
financial
thus improved
performance.
a
that P&G's key competitor,
Unilever,
strong
a multidomestic
of
marketing
approach,
and

in 1999 that itwould

competitive

illustrated

further globalize

disadvantage

clearly by an example

and International

of Unilever's

its opera
approach

in its fabric softener

Brands

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

business.

in Europe
under
different
competed
and
whereas
Coccolino,
Mimosin),
(Robijn,
a
in all countries.
Lenor,
brand,
unique
European
Unilever

names

brand

P&G had
Neither

Local

Brand

Development

tion

nor

academics
to local

have

practitioners
Some
authors

brands.

have

paid

atten

much
out

pointed

the exis

tence of local brands (de Chernatony, Halliburton,

and
Bernarth 1995; Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001; Halliburton
and Himerberg 1993; Quelch and Hoff 1986) and have dis
cussed their characteristics
(Ger 1999; Kapferer 2000, 2002;
Schlosser
local

brand

the impact
of
authors
have
2002). Other
analyzed
on brand
names
con
in a Chinese
attractiveness

text (Francis, Lam, and Walls

2002; Zhang

2001), but to our knowledge,

to further develop
research

one

in Europe,

However,

no

has

the understanding
are many

there

and Schimitt

conducted
of local

more

local

in-depth
brands.

brands

than

international brands, though the trend of the proportion of

to international
local brands
is diminishing.
brands
the car, computer,
and high-tech
industries,
among
Although
are
well-known
for
their
international
others,
brands,
strong
are still characterized
sectors
In
many
by their local brands.

Germany's oil industry, British Petroleum acquired the local

leader Aral and, in view of its strong brand equity, decided to
retain

the

name.

brand

local

In France,

the

leading

whisky

brands are not the well-known

J&B or Johnny Walker but the
local Label 5, Clan Campbell, and William Peel. In the Czech
Republic, Danone did not succeed in imposing its global Lu
brand on that market and has had to use the local brand fran
chise Opavia to develop its business. In Belgium, the leader
in the mineral water market is the local leader Spa, and it has
shares

well

above

Local

brands

also represent
are well-known

ment.

They

the

international

of marketing
invest
many
years
in their markets
and often build

with

strong
relationships
However,
strong

local

Evian.

leader

consumers

local

brands

have

over

the years.
elimi

been

essentially

nated from multinational

brand portfolios, not because they
do not represent strong brand franchises locally, but because
their

relative

scale.

For

sales

example,

despite

the brand's

itability
time was

in both

of Local
Advantages
Brand Development

Dash

was

also

created

of

economies
permit
P&G
considered
1990s,

have

advantages
100

and

extreme

company's
cost
complexities

prof
at the

in Europe,

leader.

building
an inexorable

strategic

of

in Italy and Belgium

motivation

firms

represent

sidered. We

The

the European

advantages
and
substantial

brands

not

of the
institution

national

countries.

that

Ariel

The

Strategie

do

the leading detergent, Dash,

eliminating

where

volumes
at the end

international
logic.

advantages

brands

However,
that must

are
local

be

con

to the strategic
gathered the data pertaining
of local brands during the first phase of the
Isabelle

Schuiling

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Kapferer

research.
This
involved
interviewing
and marketing
directors
of ten well-known
firms: Unilever,
Nestl?,
P&G, Coca-Cola,
Sara Lee, Campbell
Food,
Bacardi-Martini,

exploratory
managers
national
Benckiser,

the advantages

of maintaining

local

Kraft

to respond

to the

local

can be

local brand

market's

have more

Local brand products

next.

brands

to Local Needs.

Response

designed

Reckitt

and Inbev (formerly Interbrew). We discuss

Jacobs Suchard,

Better

general
multi

needs.

specific

flexibility

than interna

answers
so they can be developed
to provide
brands,
to local consumers'
That
local
needs.
is,
branding
particular
a
can not only
its
but also
select
unique
product
provide
an
that
and
generate
advertising
campaign
positioning
an
In
international
local
brand
reflects
contrast,
insights.
across markets,
must
of consumers
the largest number
satisfy
tional

and

thus

denomina
often represent
the largest common
the product's
and marketing's
perspectives.

they
both

tor from

of Pricing

Flexibility

can be more

brands
brand's

local

strategies

for local

of a
take advantage
There
is also no

can

thus

and

in specific

strength

Pricing

Strategy.

flexible

markets.

risk of parallel imports because the brand is not linked to a

can lead to
strategy. Such flexibility
regional pricing
increased profits because prices can be fixed at higher levels.
In contrast,
ticular

remain

because

corridor,
pricing
across
territories.

made

must

brands

international

comparisons
true
is especially

This

a par

within
can be
in Europe,

easily
fol

of the Euro.

lowing the introduction

to Local or International Competi

Possibility of Responding
can
be used to respond to local or inter
tion. A local brand
national

or

competition

even

to compete

brands. A local brand can be repositioned

mix

In contrast,

accordingly.

adapted

for an international

brand must

or

strategy.

global

marketing

against

retailer

and the marketing

the marketing

follow a predefined

strategy

regional

a Portfolio of Brands. An interna

of Balancing
Possibility
and
international
that mostly
tional portfolio
comprises
can

be powerful,
one
arises
with

brands

global

that

problem

can

country

This was

a negative

have

illustrated

mega
impact

in 1998 by the example

consumers

Some

Belgium.

risks. A
presents
a
in
brand
particular
on a worldwide
basis.

it also

but

became

after

sick

in

of Coca-Cola
drinking

a par

ticular batch of the product. The news circulated quickly and

and

globally,

image. The
now

it had

a negative

international
news

impact

media,

on Coca-Cola's

including

brand

the Internet,

is

around
instantly
had
of
which
Perrier,
example
was
in
water
when
detected
benzene
with
purity
problems
recov
has never
business
The U.S. Perrier
the product.
fully
able

the world.

Local

to diffuse
Another

and International

and

information

is the case

Brands

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ered from this incident. A lesson that can be learned from

is that a brand portfolio with both strong
these examples
local and strong international brands is in a better position to
on a worldwide

risk

manage

Possibility

basis.

toNeeds Not Covered by Interna

of Responding

tional

Brands.

tional

brands

Profitable

cover

must

economies

of scale,
interna
in many
markets.

similar

segments
that are unique
attractive
opportunities

to certain

of the markets

segments
can still

countries

from

To benefit

represent

for local

brands.

of Fast Entry into New Markets.

Possibility

a local

acquires

frequently
the number-one

acquiring
interviews
local

also

brands

time, which
It is clear

leaders

of

international
close

develop
relationships
trust.
leads to a high brand
that

local

brands
and

by

vent

the brands

scale

in the product

We

Equity of Local and

Brands
International

have

noted

from

strategy has

large

strategic

with

Separately,
that strong
Local
over

disad
important
to cost. The
rela

that local brands

advantages

has

aggressively

equity.
consumers

of

sell pre

economies

significant
areas.

marketing

Inbev

brand

represent
are linked

generating

or

the

also

of products

tively small volumes

Brand

and

that

a market

to enter

This

ten years.
revealed

the past
marketers

awareness

from

benefit

which

vantages,

over

local

brands

A company

in the past.
For example,
brewer
in the world
by

used

become

acquires

further large investment.

directly without
been

also

brand

a way

of

and

international

local brands, but it is also useful to identify the particulari

ties of their brand equities in terms of awareness level and
brand image (Kapferer 1991; Keller 1998). The literature on
international and global brands has provided some indica
tions of the importance of brand equity. For international
shows
that perceived
brand
research
global brands,
glob
consumer
create
of
brand
alness
could
superior
perceptions
and

ity (Kapferer 1992, 2004; Shocker,

1994).

Research

important

factors

also

confirms

that

brands (Holt, Quelch,

and Alden 2003).

drive

Srivastava,

and Ruekert

is among
that quality
consumer
preference

the most
for global

and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp,

Batra,

In addition to quality, international and global brands have

been associated with high prestige or status (Batra et al. 2000;
Kapferer 1992). Recent empirical studies have demonstrated
that prestige is the second factor driving global brand prefer
ence
Alden
sumers
argue

and Taylor
(Holt, Quelch,
some
In
contrast,
2003).

2003;
studies

Batra,
Steenkamp,
have
shown
that

local connections,
may
prefer brands with
consumer
that there is no intrinsic
preference

national

and global brands

102 Isabelle

(DeMooij

Schuiling

some

for inter

1998).

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and

and
con

Kapferer

No

research

local

equity.

the product's
reveal
that

of the products
1989;

Samiee

is emphasized.
of origin
of origin
has an impact

country

and Wyer

of
some

and

Douglas,
local

studies

consumers'

1988; Hong

Nonaka

1971). Researchers

to evaluate

tend

Such
on

(Han and Terpstra

Johansson,

1994; Schooler

consumers

the understanding
research
provides

of brand equity on local brands, when

country

evaluations

on

conducted

Country-of-origin

indications

general

that

been

has

brand

1985;

have also found

more

products

highly

than foreign products (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Han 1989; Kay
nak and Cavusgil 1983; Nagashima
1977; Schooler 1971),
across

varies

this bias

though

consumer

tries (Heslop and Papadopoulos

Some

1987).
brands

authors

that

country,

have

1993; Shimp

as
perceive
originating
from Western
countries,

they

especially

and Sharma

consumers

that

shown

from

coun

and

segments

prefer
a nonlocal

more

than

they

do local brands and that preference is linked not only to per

ceived quality but also to social status (Alden, Steenkamp,
and Batra 1999).
of our

use

To make
difference
ular

a second

basis of the secondary

database

Asset

Brand
44

covered
waves

countries

created

have

been

surveyed

this

database,

the

Exploratory
Analysis
the Y&R Database

in partic
attribute,
con
and trust. We
on

research

the

analysis

brand

Y&R database
original
Three
brands.
20,000
the database
since
conducted
The

and

been

and more

in 1993,

evaluate

Valuator.
have

was

next

of the Y&R worldwide

worldwide

of interviews

From

we

sources,

and brand
image
of quality,
prestige,
of the exploratory
phase

attributes

the

ducted

information

in awareness

than

230,000

respondents

to date.
we

selected

of 12 product

sample

cate

gories in the food sector (see Table 1). They represent 744 dif
units

ferent

brand

tries:

the United

the

covering

four

largest European
and
France,

Germany,

Kingdom,

coun
A

Italy.

total of 397 brands (53%) are local, and 347 (47%) are inter
national, as Table 2 indicates. A total of 9739 people were
from 1999 to 2000. The database is extremely
interviewed
rich

in terms

of available

lyze
were

the data

on

available

brand

usage.

image
to evaluate

also

a relatively

consideration

under

were

to ana

able

criteria

(48 image
each brand),
number
high

from Germany

(3460

and
of

(9739) and from the

from the total database

respondents
countries

thus we

brand

were

There

and

data,

awareness,
to consumers

[36%],

2474 from the United Kingdom

[25%], 1915 from France
1890
from
and
[20%],
Italy [19%]).
We

the

selected

majority
tively.

Local

sector

the
of

alcohol

and

international

In contrast,

the beer

and International

it covers

because

that offer different

categories
example,

food

levels

gum
chewing
at 60%
brands
and mineral

Brands

many

product

For

of globalization.
have

categories
and 56%,
respec
have
water
categories

103

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of

Table
Brands

per Product

Product

Category

Number of
Brands

Category
1. Alcohol

153

2. Chocolate

124

119

3. Beer
4. Yogurt

72

5. Mineral

water

6. Frozen

goods

7. Chewing
8. Fruit

45

9. Coffee

11. Soup

49 (41%)

45 (63%)

27 (37%)

26 (58%)

19 (42%)

7 (19%)

25 (69%)

11 (31%)

17 (50%)

17 (50%)

12 (46%)

14 (54%)

19 (76%)

6 (24%)

397 (53%)

347 (47%)

25

744

70 (59%)

29 (81%)

34

TOTAL

71 (57%)

14 (37%)

26

12. Pasta

53 (43%)

20 (56%)

36

10. Ice cream

92 (60%)

16 (44%)

36

36

juice

61 (40%)

24 (63%)

38

gum

Number of
International
Brands
(% of total)

Number of
Local Brands
(% of total)

1.

of

Number

Table
Brands

per Country

2.
Brands

Number of
Local Brands
(% of total)

of

Number
Total

International
Brands

(% of total)

744

397 (53%)

347 (47%)

France

172

74 (43%)

98 (57%)

Germany

226

139 (62%)

87 (38%)

177

108 (61%)

69 (39%)

76 (45%)

93 (55%)

All

countries

Italy
United

169

Kingdom

a majority

at 59% and 58%,

of local brands,
respectively,
to
the
database.
there are many
Moreover,
according
global,
in this industry.
and local players
international,
Unilever,
are
of
and Kraft Jacobs Suchard
Mars,
Nestl?,
good examples

are

international and global firms, and strong local players

still present in key local markets.
Note

that though the food sector was

ditions

and

changed,

as indicated

Barilla,

traditions
apparently
has
dency

have

gradually

satisfy
also been

the

major

sector,

players

situation

replaced

of many

are given

brands

which

preference;

brands

that

This

ten

in the retail

the concentration

international

impact on deciding

by products

of consumers.

number

now

has

Danone,
Nestl?,
local
that reflect

including
Products

been

largest
driven
by

ing industry. Logically,

international

time,

and Kraft.

Nutella,

linked fully to local tra

this

by the rapid development

in this

brands

international
Evian,

at one

cultures

that belong

to

have

retailers

are displayed

on

shelves.

supermarket

104

Isabelle

Schuiling

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Kapferer

our

First,

of the database

analysis

shows

the awareness

that

level of local brands (85%) is significantly higher than that of

international brands (73%), in confirmation
of the results
from the first phase of interviews. This points to a significant
level might be
advantage for local brands; this awareness
related to the number of years that brands have been in the

of the Y&R

Results
Database

market.

ferent

of the brand image, based on the 48 dif

the analysis

Second,

brand

attributes

the perception
international

in the database,

available

of quality
brands

that

shows

is as high for local brands as it is for

versus

(25.3%

24.3%),

as Table

3 indi

cates. There is no significant difference between either group

of brands. Note that of the 48 available attributes, quality is
the most

attribute

important

selected

by

consumers.

Third, the image of trust is significantly

stronger for local
brands than for international brands (22.1% versus 17.9%).
This also confirms the findings of the first phase of inter
views

of international

element

of the
value

Fourth,

trust

they

is also

brand

equity

1991); that is, brands

(Aaker 1991; Kapferer

because

is a key

Trust

marketers.

exist

to consumers.

convey

as an

perceived

important

attribute

for

local brands, as is indicated by the significantly higher value

rating for local brands (18.8%) than for international brands

Local Brands

Variables
High

Trustworthy

17.9*
22.1

Good

18.816.8*

value

Friendly

15.414.4

Traditional

12.7*
15.1

on a
of Means
Comparison
of Image Variables
Selection

14.0

14.5

Healthy

15.6

11.4*

Original

13.3
13.6

Reliable

22.1 17.9*

Distinct

12.6 12.8

Trendy

Social
Kind

12.5

12.2

11.7

12.2

10.1
10.4

Authentic
Fun

11.3*

9.8
11.29.3

Sensual

7.4 6.9

Prestigious

Local

3.

14.7*
15.7

to earth

*Significant

(%)

17.2

18.6

Simple

Brands

Table

24.3
25.3

quality

Down

International

(%)

difference

between

international

and International

and local brands, p < .05.

Brands

105

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(16.8%). This might

be linked with

the fact that prices

are usually
local brands
lower
than
consumers
a sense
brands,
providing

those

of

of better

of

international
value

for the

money.
Fifth,
earth"

are

local

brands

than

international

perceived
brands.
This

local brands offer a more basic/no

The

also

study

as more

also

that

indicates

to

"down
the

conveys

idea

that

frills brand proposition.

local

are

brands

as

perceived

more traditional (15.1%) than international brands (12.7%).

This is quite logical, because local brands are linked more to
local

and

traditions

local

cultures

than

international

brands

are.

Sixth, the results also indicate that local brands (22.1%) ben
efit more from a significantly
stronger image of reliability
brands
than do international
(17.9%). This attribute is
closely correlated in the database with the trustworthy attrib
ute,

this

confirming

strong

for

advantage

local

brands.

The

results also indicate that there is no significant difference

between the perception of prestige for international brands
(7.4%) and that for local brands (6.9%). The relatively low
level of this attribute for both international and local brands
case

in the

is surprising

of international

brands,

as this was

not identified in previous research on global brands (Holt,

and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp,
Batra, and Alden
Quelch,
2003).
The

database

and

international

also

provides
brands.

information
The

results

on
show

the usage
higher

of local
for

ratings

local brands (42.9%) than for international brands (37.4%),

as Table 4 indicates. Note that the usage intention figures
indicate a different pattern; ratings are slightly higher for
international brands (47.5%) than for local brands (46.0%).
This
tional

are attracted
to interna
that consumers
indicate
might
to
local
brands
but that, in reality,
they prefer
purchase

brands. The identified value advantage of local brands could

the difference

explain

lower

relatively

keep people

between

value

rating

from buying

A
intention.
and usage
usage
could
for international
brands

the brands

they would

have

liked

to buy.
We

and

ables

use

sumers
with

usage

identified

we
local brands,
as the
dependant
Local Brands

Variables

Table 4.
of Usage and
Comparison
Usage Intention

on the 48 image
analysis
the reasons
9 factors.
To evaluate

a factor

conducted

also

Usage

a regression
this produced
International

(%)

con

analysis
a
signif
Brands

(%)

37.4*

47.5
46.0

intention

Usage
*
Significant

42.9

performed
variable;

vari

difference

between

international

106 Isabelle

and local brands, p < .05.

Schuiling

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Kapferer

icant percentage of explained variance (76.9%). Two factors,

trust and basic/no
frills, interacted significantly with the
indicator variables (local brand and international brand), at a
significance level of 5%. This confirms that consumers per
ceive

local

basic/no-frills
an

For

to be more

brands

and to offer a more

trustworthy
than international
brands.
proposition

brand

international

brands

provide

context

indisputable

of market

benefit

generate
attractive.

from

important

However,
can create

of a strong
international

global marketing
must
marketers
companies

to develop

strategies

Because

brands.

power

Conclusion
Managerial

and
image worldwide,
unique
are
of scale
that
financially

International

2001).

for firms to

and global brands create barriers

having
economies

application
risks that

(Schuiling

tralized

advantages.

of these

of their size, international

to entry,

and
global
In the current

it is sensible

globalization,

the development

accelerate

international

company,

many

approach
consider

usually

their powerful

use

cen

global brands.

such companies
have
less intimate
Therefore,
relationships
and take a long time to react to problems
with
local markets
its strategy
when
Coca-Cola
they arise. For example,
changed

it found that its structure had become

when
and

that

it was

more

and

to give
are now

local

consumers

even

launch

and,
local

approach
teams
Local

local

to a more

to return

decided

pany

new

to local

freedom

to develop
permitted
on the basis
of local
brands.

have

subsidiaries

too cumbersome

In 2000,
the com
multidomestic
marketing

to local markets.

insensitive

over

Thus,

launched

subsidiaries.
to

advertising

can

knowledge,
the past two years,

brand

local

many

initiatives.
Even

the strong
P&G,
to understand

forced

advocate

of

limits

the

of

global
marketing,
As we
its strategy.

was
men

in 2000 in Belgium, P&G tried to replace

tioned previously,
the leading local and very profitable detergent Dash brand
with

the European-wide

discontinued

brand.

Ariel

an

Dash,
In the wake

advertising
of business.

For nine

months,
move

inconceivable

P&G
for

of this, because
P&G's
type
were
so
was
in the detergent
it
forced
poor,
category
some
to renew marketing
It
for
Dash.
also
support
reopened
to
costs.
Because
it
reduce
that
had
closed
local subsidiaries
this

results

P&G had put distance

its business

sumers,

firms maintain

tional

between

suffered.

We

close

contact

local market by communicating

local

even

consumers,

if there

itself and the local con

with

that

recommend
with

the

realities

interna
of the

local experts who know

is an extra

cost

element

asso

ciated with doing so.

We

have

local

Local

also

brands

shown
can

offer

that,

in addition

strategic

and International

to international

advantages

Brands

that

brands,
international

107

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and
Implications

should

marketers
greater

strategic

that must

the

largest
correct

the
local

a standardized

number

for a specific

positioning
international

strategy.

quickly

and with minimum

They

by
portfolio
brands. We believe

sufficiently
situation.

Our

the

recommend

international

of

a balanced

mar

international

international

number

brand

of both strong

brands.
on

research

exploratory

that

development

that combine

and

in this

the need for risk management

we

Therefore,
encourage

the risk represented

a majority
of international
that academics
and practitioners
have not
contains

emphasized

portfolios
local

that

through

brand.

local brands can help minimize

Second,

keters

local

markets

investment

marketing

of a successful

the acquisition

new

introduce

also

by a global

influenced

being

can

pricing

to satisfy
select

can

market,
existing
taking
can
into account.
They

competitors

adopt specific pricing without

to the specific

product
Firms

of consumers.

First,

to international

is in contrast

This

deliver

possible

and

marketing

firms

provide
areas.

that can better respond

consumers.

of local

needs
brands

in many

flexibility

they offer a product

brands

Local

consider.

the Y&R

database

that

indicates

local brands benefit from strong brand equity. In particular,

local

higher
and
do,

brands

international

consumer

from

benefit

brands

awareness
a strong

enjoy

they

image. They benefit not only from a good quality

also

a better

from

value

for

local

brand

image but
interna

than

perception

find that trust is an important advan

tional brands do. We

tage

trust

and

than

a unique

it provides

because

brands,

relation

it is not
that takes years to develop;
ship with consumers
It is doubtful
linked to any particular level of investment.
that

an

international
with

relationship
ment
in marketing.

could

recommend

leverage
advantage
in building
with
succeeded

At a time when

achieve,
strong
firms
International

trust

of

are

should

essential
take

unique
invest

that

international

that

local

brands

consumers.

local

is more

differentiation

product
brands

such
reproduce
after substantial

even

the

marketers
have

brand
consumers,
Thus, we

to

difficult

into

differentiating
account
that

the

substantial

assets.

owning
a
franchises
local brand
strong
represents
key
long-term
we
not elimi
asset. Therefore,
that companies
recommend
on the basis
nate
financial
consid
of short-term
local brands
erations

but

advantage
local level.
In support
trate that
the virtues

that

they

of owning

consider
brands

with

strong

recommendation,
firms
multinational

of local

acknowledged

brands.

Through

that trust is essential

Isabelle

Schuiling

equity,

recent

of this
some

long-term
even at the

have

illus
examples
to
recognize
begun

its actions,

Unilever

has

to develop brands in the

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Kapferer

food sector. In its ice cream business,

best-known

brand

local

in the United

Wall's
globalizing

logos,

and new

Even

in France,

in Italy, while

and Agnesi

Kingdom,

has kept the

as Miko

such

names,

products,

num and Solero.

Unilever

as Mag

such

concepts,

in the traditionally

cos

globalized

have
L'Or?al has discovered
that local brands
business,
to
In
retain
U.S.
clients.
the
power
May
globalizing
a
strat
belline
L'Or?al
has pursued
brand,
double-branding

metic
the

is the host brand and another name

egy, inwhich Maybelline

is

the

local

For

brand.

the

example,

in France

Gemey-Maybelline

and

markets

company

in

Jade-Maybelline

Germany.
We

also

firms

recommend

in their

that

recent

the

acknowledge

ism in the different parts of the world,

account
be

might

for the

effects

critical

for

same

the

consumers

in all

brands

categories
for a company
brand

argument

a balance

lio to maintain
tional

regional

including Europe, and

to avoid overloading

international

is another

This

where.

more

movement.
It
of the antiglobalization
more
to offer
firms
diver
international

sity in their brand portfolio

with

international

strategies,
trends
toward

every
portfo

of both strong local and interna

brands.

to create a source
of new
ideas,
Finally,
nies
the
should
encourage
development
As we mentioned
Coca-Cola
previously,

international
of new

local

compa
brands.

local
granted
new
is a pow
teams
local brands, which
the right to develop
new
new
to generate
local brands
These
erful way
ideas.
at
brands
into successful
international
could be transformed
has

a later point. In addition, firms' providing

local marketing
teams the opportunity to build local brands has an impact on
teams'

the

motivation

international

that
develop

new

local

In summary,

Strong

worth

local

they might
brands
assets

Therefore,

we

recommend

encourage
as a source
of new

local

companies

eliminate

be throwing

represent

to

teams

ideas.

strong

away opportunities.
advantages

strategic

that

are

and they enjoy strong brand franchises

for any

nated from their market,

cessfully.

Thus,

marketers
brands

consideration,
are real

level.

skill

if international

local brands,

that

and

there

company.

When

are many

brands

to relaunch

it is difficult

reasons

are elimi

them suc

to encourage

the

of brand portfolios that contain a balanced mix

development
of strong local and international brands.
Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing
the Value of a Rrand Name. New
-

and
Branding,"

Brand

Equity: Capitalizing
York: The Free Press.

on

References

"The Lure of Global

Erich
(1999),
Joachimsthaler
77 (November-December),
Rusiness
Harvard
Review,

137-44.

Local

and International

Brands

109

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

E.M. Steenkamp,
and Rajeev Batra
L., Jan-Benedict
in Asia, North
"Brand
(1999),
Positioning
Through Advertising
Role
of
Consumer
and
Global
The
Culture,"
America,
Europe:
63 (January), 75-87.
Journal of Marketing,
Dana

Alden,

A. and Sumantra
Ghoshal
Bartlett, Christopher
(1986), "Tap Your
64
Rusiness
for Global Reach," Harvard
Subsidiaries
Review,
87-94.
(November-December),
Dana Alden,
Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram
Jan-Benedict
Ramaswamy,
E.M. Steenkamp,
and S. Ramachander
(2000), "Effects of Brand
in Develop
Local and Non Local Origin on Consumer
Attitudes
9
83-95.
(2),
Journal of Consumer
ing Countries,"
Psychology,
J. and Erik Nes (1982), "Country
Bilkey, Warren
Product Evaluation,"
Journal of International
(1), 89-99.

of Origin
Rusiness

Effects

on

Studies,

(1986), "Stan
Jean J., Robin Soehl, and Jacques Picard
Boddewyn,
in International
in Fact
dardization
Is
Ted
Levitt
Marketing:
29
68-75.
Rusiness
Horizons,
(November-December),
Right?"
Robert

Buzzell,

Marketing?"
December),
Samuel

Craig,

D. (1968),
Harvard
102-113.
C. and Susan

tage in Global
(1), 6-21.
De

"Can You
Rusiness

Markets,"

Standardize
Review,

Multinational
46

(November

P. Douglas
(2000), "Configurai Advan
8
Journal
of International
Marketing,

and Ratna Bernarth

Chris Halliburton,
Leslie,
Chernatony,
or Supply
Driven
"International
Demand
(1995),
Branding:
12 (2), 9-21.
International
Review,
Opportunity?"
Marketing

De Mooij,
Marieke
(1998), Global Marketing
Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

and Advertising.

Susan P., Samuel C. Craig, and Edwin

(2001),
J. Nijssen
Douglas,
Across
Interna
Markets:
"Integrating Branding
Strategy
Building
9
tional Brand Architecture,"
Journal of International
Marketing,
97-114.
(2),
Yoram

-and
Columbia

Journal

Wind
of World

"The Myth
of Globalization,"
(1987),
22
Rusiness,
(Winter), 19-29.

"The
(2002),
June N.P.,
Janet P.Y Lam, and Jan Walls
on
of
Name
International
Brand
Differences
Linguistic
Impact
A Comparison
and Chinese
Standardization:
of English
Brand
00 Companies,"
Names
Mar
of Fortune-5
International
Journal of
10
98-116.
(1),
keting,

Francis,

Ger, Guliz
Competing
41,

in the Global Village:

Local Firms
(1999), "Localizing
in Global Markets,"
Review,
California Management

64-84.

Halliburton,

Chris

Marketing:
Myth
1 (3), 243-49.
Han,

C. Min

Journal
-and
National
Rusiness

and Reinhard H?nerberg

(1993), "Pan-European
or
International
Journal
of
Marketing,
Reality?"

"Country Image: Halo or Summary

26 (May), 222-29.
Research,
of Marketing
(1989),

Construct?"

Vern Terpstra
(1988), "Country of Origin Effects for Uni
and Bi-National
Products,"
Journal
of International
19
235-55.
Studies,
(Summer),

110 Isabelle

Schuiling

and Jean-No?l

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Kapferer

Salah S. and Lea Pravel Katsanis

of
Hassan,
(1991), "Identification
Global Consumer
Framework,"
Journal
Segments: A Behavioural
of International

Consumer

Isabelle Schuiling is a professor,

School ofManagement,
University of Louvain, Belgium

Louise A. and Nicolas

"But Who
(1993),
Heslop,
Papadopoulos
or When:
Knows Where
on the Images of Countries
Reflections
and Their Products,"
in Product-Country
and
Images:
Impact
Role in International
N.
L.
and
Marketing,
Papadopoulos
Heslop,
eds. New York: International
Business
Press (Haworth),
39-75.
and Earl Taylor
John Quelch,
(2003),
Brand: How Global
Perceptions
School.
paper, Harvard Business

and Robert S. Wyer

(1989),
Sung-Tai
and
Product-Attribute
Information
Origin

"Effects

Hong,

tives,"

of Consumer

Journal

Richard

Sandra,

Huszagh,

An
Marketing:
World Business,

J. Fox,

and Ellen

Empirical
Investigation,"
21 (4), 31-44.

C.

Jain, Subhash

(1989), "Standardization
Some Research
Hypothesis,"
70-79.

ing Strategy:
53 (January),

of Country-of

Processing
16 (2), 175-87.

Research,

(e-mail:

authors thank Young & Rubicam,

in particular
for
Jim Williams,
access
to
its
worldwide
providing

The

Market

and

of Marketing,

database.

and Ikujiro Nonaka

(1985),
Johny K, Susan P. Douglas,
on Product
the
of
of
Evalua
"Assessing
Country
Origin
Impact
tions: A New Methodological
Journal of Marketing
Perspective,"
5 (August),
175-87.
Research,

"How Global

-(1992),

"In Defense

(2000),

Journal

The New
York: Kogan
Erdener

Kaynak,
tudes Towards
Product

of Local

"Is There Really

Brand
Management,
of

-(2004),
New

in ESOMAR

Brands?"

Brands,"

Market

Con
and

in

Leader,

Today

39-42.

(Summer),
-(2002),

Are Global

New

Management.

The Challenge
of Branding
199-215.
ESOMAR,
Belgium:

ference
Proceedings:
the Future. Brussels,
-

Brand

Strategic

Strategic

No Hope
for Local
9 (January), 48-54.
Brand Management.

Brands?"

London

The

and

Page.
and S. Tamer

Atti
(1983), "Consumer
Cavusgil
of Foreign Origin: Do They Vary Across
2 (1),
International
Journal
of Advertising,

Products

Classes?"

147-57.

Kevin

Lane (1998),
and
Measuring
Managing
Prentice Hall.

Keller,

Strategic Brand Management:

Brand Equity Upper
Saddle

Levitt, Theodore
(1983), "The Globalization
92-108.
61 (May-June),
Business
Review,
Nagashima,

Akira

(1977),

Japanese
Survey Among
95-100.
(Summer),

"A Comparative
Businessmen,"

of Markets,"

Building,
River, NJ:
Harvard

'Made in' Product

Journal

of Marketing,

Image
41

Dimen
Sak and John J. Shaw
Onkvisit,
(1989), "The International
Inter
sion of Branding:
Considerations
and
Decisions,"
Strategic
6 (3), 22-34.
national Marketing
Review,

Local

an d In tern a tion al Bran ds

(e-mail:

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Johansson,

(1991),
Jean-No?l
Kapferer,
York: The Free Press.

Paris

kapferer@h ec.fr).

(1986), "Global
Day
Columbia
Journal
of

Journal

is a
Jean-No?l Kapferer
HEC
School
professor,
of
Management,

Perspec

of International

schuiling@mark.ucl.ac.

be).

the
"Managing
Drive Value,"

Holt, Douglas,
Transnational
working

The Authors

3 (2), 11-29.

Marketing,

111

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

E. (1986), "The Strategie Role of International

3 (Spring) 17-21.
of Consumer Marketing,

Porter, Michael
keting,"

Mar

Journal

Global
(1986), "Customizing
J. Hoff
John A. and Edward
64
59-68.
Business
Harvard
Review,
Marketing,"
(May-June),

Quelch,

"Customer
Saeed
Evaluation
of Products
(1994),
International
Rusiness
Market,"
Studies,
Journal of
579-604.
Quarter),

Samiee,
Global

Schlosser,

Anne-Marie

Schooler,

Robert

locales
"Marques
at
internationales,"
paper presented
Congr?s
Europe, Paris (June 25-26).

of Foreign
keting
Rusiness
Studies,

(2002),

in a
(3rd

face aux marques

en
du Marketing

to the Mar
Attendant
(1971), "Bias Phenomena
in the US," Journal
Goods
International
of
2 (1), 71-81.

Isabelle
(2001), "Think Local, Act Local: Is it Time to
Schuiling,
to Global Marketing?"
Move
Euro
Slow Down
the Accelerated
5 (Spring), 68-70.
Forum,
pean Rusiness
Ethno
Sharma
(1987), "Consumer
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash
Construction
centrism:
and Validation
of the CETSCALE,"
Jour
24 (August), 280-89.
nal of Marketing
Research,
Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava,
and Robert W. Ruekert
and Opportunities
(1994), "Challenges
Facing Brand Manage
to the Special
ment: An Introduction
Issue," Journal of Market
31 (May), 149-58.
ing Research,

Shocker,

(1975), "How Multi

Rusiness
Harvard

Sorenson,
Ralph Z. and Ulrich E. Wiechmann
View Marketing
nationals
Standardization,"
38-137.
53
Review,
(May-June),

E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden

Jan-Benedict
Steenkamp,
Creates Brand Value,"
"How
Globalness
Perceived
(2003),
Jour
34 (1), 53-65.
Rusiness
nal of International
Studies,
Terpstra, Vern
International

"The Evolution
of International
Marketing,"
4
Review,
(Summer), 47-59.
Marketing
(1987),

of Globalization,"
Wind, Yoram
(1986), "The Myth
sumer Marketing,
3 (Spring), 23-26.

Journal

Market:
"The Single
Alan
Wolfe,
(1991),
European
International
Euro-Brands,"
Journal of Advertising,

of Con

National
of
10 (1), 49

58.

(2001),
Zhang, Shi and Bernd H. Schimitt
in Multilingual
International
Markets,"
38 (August), 313-25.
Research,

112

Isabelle

Sch uiling

"Creating
Journal

Local

Brands

of Marketing

an d Jean -No?l Kapferer

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.220 on Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:13:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions