品牌营销文献翻译

品牌营销的原文以及外文翻译

Brand internationalization strategy beyond the

standardization/adaptation dichotomy. (fragment)

Nabil GHANTOUS

GREFI- Université Paul Cézanne

Aix-Marseille III, France.

ghantousnabil@http://

19 Bd Emile ZOLA

13100- Aix En Provence- France.

0033 6 72 07 04 51

presented at the Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management, 15-16th April 2008, Birmingham- UK.

** The author would like to thank Pr. Jean PHILIPPE for his valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Brand internationalization strategy beyond the

standardization/adaptation dichotomy.

Abstract

The standardization vs. adaptation choice of international brands should no longer be seen as dogmatic nor as a rigid dichotomy. Instead, it should be regarded as a combination of these two options, depending on contingent factors at a given time on a given market. Building on a review of the different visions of consumers’ culture, we present a modelling of the

intermediate solutions combining both elements of standardization and adaptation, and that is better suited today for demand and supply driven considerations. Thus, we first delimitate the questions that need to be considered when formulating the international marketing strategy and mix, and then we present a simplified framework of two dimensions, products’ global vocation and demand’s global homogeneity, leading to a matrix of four strategic options for international branding.

Keywords: international branding, standardization/adaptation, internationalization matrix, consumers’ culture.

Brand internationalization strategy beyond the standardization/adaptation dichotomy.

While globalization and the culturescapes it is shaping (Appadurai 1990) intensify,

multinational corporations face important challenges in their international marketing efforts, especially concerning the management of their brands. In fact, taking its brand on an

international level offers great opportunities both for the survival of the firm and its expansion (Melewar and Walker 2003), but at the same time confronts it with different options concerning its strategic and operational marketing decisions.

There is no consensus today in the international marketing literature on a unique terminology for international brands (Hsieh 2002, Medina and Duffy 1998). Nevertheless, despite a

品牌营销的原文以及外文翻译

growing number of terms used in this domain (e.g. local brands, global, post-global, foreign, multi-domestic…), it is most common to oppose the global brand, that standardizes its

marketing across its different markets, to the local brand that adapts its marketing to cultural and socio-economic settings (e.g. Aaker and Joachimsthaler 1999, Kapferer 2005, Van Raaij 1997). This criterion reflects the importance of the standardization vs. adaptation question in international branding, often considered as one of the major research and managerial

problems (Prime and Usunier 2003).

However, many researchers consider this opposition between the global and the local brand as a rigid dichotomy (Buzzell 1968, Russell and Valenzuela 2005, Svensson 2002), and propose to replace it with a more realistic brand internationalization continuum (e.g. de Chernatony, Halliburton and Bernath 1995, Hsieh and Lindridge 2005, Papavassiliou and Stathakopoulos 1997). For instance, Schuiling and Kapferer (2004) consider a third option between these two extremes, the international brand, which standardizes only a part of its marketing strategy and tactics.

The object of this article is thus twofold. First, building on the capital importance of

consumer’s culture for branding, we review the literature to present the social and cultural underpinnings of each of these three branding options. Then, in the second section, we present a simplified framework delimitating both the strategic questions brand managers face and the solutions they could consider when choosing the internationalization strategy of their brands. Finally we conclude by presenting the limitations of our work and future research

orientations.

Social and cultural underpinnings of international branding strategy:

The question of whether to standardize or to adapt the international marketing has received great attention during the last forty years, both options presenting positive arguments as well as serious limitations. In this framework, economies of scale are and by far the main

advantage of global brands (e.g. Aaker et al. 1999, Barron and Hollingshead 2004, Buzzell 1968, de Chernatony et al. 1995, Douglas, Craig et Nijssen 2001, Kapferer 2005, Levitt 1983, Melewar et al. 2003, Papavassiliou et al. 1997, Schuiling et al. 2004, Quelch 1999). In fact, as global brands standardize their marketing strategy and mix, this generates important cost savings in many areas of their marketing (e.g. R&D, promotion), thus allowing the brand to poor more investments into its marketing actions and/or to have more competitive prices than its local competitors. Furthermore, with distribution channels going global, global brands seem to have much better bargaining power than local ones (Barron et al. 2004, de

Chernatony et al. 1995). Important international brand equity also allows these brands to better conquer new markets (Douglas et al. 2001), launch new products (Schuiling et al. 2004) and brand extensions (Quelch 1999).

While these important advantages of global brands are mostly on the supply side (de

Chernatony et al. 1995), global standardization can also be a source of added value for

consumers. In fact, standardizing marketing strategy and mix can assure a strong, unique and consistent brand image across markets (Melewar et al. 2003, Schuiling et al. 2004). Thus, Johansson and Ronkainen (2005) found that global brands are associated with greater esteem, while Steenkamp, Batra and Alden (2003) found that brand globalization positively impacts perceived quality and brand prestige. Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (1999) explain this better perception by consumers’ feeling of belonging to a superior, more prestigious segment when consuming global brands. Nevertheless, this added value for consumers is minor when

considering the demand side of the standardization/adaptation issue, where cultural

品牌营销的原文以及外文翻译

differences are still the main barrier to global branding.

In fact, even in the globalization era, cultural differences are still important today and widely impact consumers’ behaviour. In a general way, Hofstede (1980) uses the terms of “mental programming” to emphasise the importance of culture on people’s general behaviour, even though he recognizes the role of individual personality and refutes cultural determinism. On a more specific ground, concerning consumption issues, Cleveland and Laroche (2007, p.250) note that, “more than any other factor, culture is the prime determinant of consumers’

attitudes, behaviours and lifestyles, and therefore, they need satisfy through the acquisition and use of goods and services”. Thus, a standardized approach on a global scale may not be appropriate, since consumers reinterpret the brand’s marketing actions

according to their cultural backgrounds and lenses, in such a way that the brand perception by the consumers often diverges from the brand expression sent by the firm (Van Gelder 2004). Therefore, local brands’ proximity to local culture allows them to build better relations with their consumers and to better respond to their needs; therefore this proximity is one of their most important assets (Schuiling et al. 2004).

Nevertheless, a global brand vision is not necessarily in conflict with the respect of

consumers’ culture. On the contrary, in his seminal paper on the globalization of markets, Levitt (1983) considers that the economies of scale and scope that a global brand must seek in its standardization process can finally be achieved because of the convergence of consumers across markets. Thus, he builds on consumers’ culture and uses it as the main argument for brand standardization. According to Levitt (1983), technology is the most powerful

determinant of human preferences. Indeed, by “proletarianizing” tourism, transport and communication, it participates in the convergence of cultures on a global scale, and more precisely of consumers’ tastes and desires. Therefore, these tastes and desires are

homogenized in a new world culture mainly characterised by modernity, where cultural differences are no more than “vestiges of the past” (Levitt 1983). Building on this new

homogeneous consumer culture, brand globalization becomes at the same time the most suited response to consumers’ demand as well as the most competitive option from the supply side. 译文：

超越标准化/适应性二分法的品牌国际化战略

*发表于品牌管理领袖的国际研讨会，第15-16次会议，

2008年4月,英国伯明翰-。

* 作者要感谢吉恩?菲利普先生在本论文先前版本中提出的宝贵意见

超越标准化/适应性二分法的品牌国际化战略

摘要：标准化相对国际品牌的适应性选择应该不再被视为教条主义也不再被作为刚性的二分法。相反,它应被看作是这两种选择的组合。根据在给定市场的特定时间里的偶然因素，结合不同视觉的消费者文化,我们将标准化、适应性这两大因素融合起来，提出了一个折中的解决方案。而这种方案也更适合今天的需求和供给推动的考虑。因此,当我们考虑规划国际营销战略的时候，我们首先给所要解决的问题划定界限。然后混合考虑,并在此基础上,我们提出一个简化的二维框架,产品的全球功能和需求的全球同质性，从而产生国际品牌的四个

品牌营销的原文以及外文翻译

战略选择矩阵。

关键词：国际品牌、标准化/适应性、国际化矩阵、消费者的文化。

超越标准化/适应性二分法的品牌国际化战略

当全球化的文化氛围越演越烈的时候，跨国大公司在全球市场营销方面面临着巨大的挑战，尤其是品牌的经营管理。实际上，将品牌发展成国际水平，会帮助企业在激烈的竞争中幸存下来同时也有利于企业的扩张（美丽华合步行者2003）。但同时，也面临许多战略上和运作上的不同的营销抉择。

至今在国际营销文学方面也没有给国际品牌设定一个唯一的条款标识（谢2002，麦地那和达菲1998），然而，在该领域使用的越来越多的条款（比如区域性品牌、全球的、后全球的、国外的、多国内的），大多数都是共同反对全球品牌，这使得营销在不同的市场更加规范化。对于区域性品牌来说，这使得它的营销和文化以及当地的社会经济设置相适应（比如艾克和乔基姆塞勒1999，科普菲尔2005，凡.雷吉1997）。这个准则反映了国际品牌化过程中标准化对比适应性问题的重要性，经常被认为重要的研究管理问题（普莱姆和有苏尼亚2003）。

然而，很多研究者认为全球化品牌合区域品牌的对立是一个严重的分歧（巴泽尔1968，拉塞尔和巴伦苏拉2005，斯文森2002），他们建议用一个更加现实的品牌国际化统一体来替换它。（彻娜东尼.哈里伯顿和布尔纳特1995，谢和林德瑞居2005，帕帕万斯里奥和斯塔萨科波罗斯1997）。举个例子，苏玲和科普菲尔（2004）在这两个极端条件下想到了第三个选择?——只是标准化一部分市场策略和战术的国际化品牌。

本文的主体就是这样一个双重体。首先，为品牌化构建最为重要的消费者文化，我们查看文献资料用以介绍这三个品牌化选择各自的社会文化支柱。然后，我们提出一个简化的框架来清楚地说明品牌经理人面临的战略问题和他们为自己的品牌选择全球化战略时可能想到的解决方法。最后，我们根据工作中呈现的局限性和未来的研究给出结论。

国际化品牌战略的社会文化支柱

关于是否要标准化或者改编国际市场营销的问题在过去的四十年里受到了广泛的关注。两种选择都各有利弊。在这种情况下，全球化品牌最大的优势在于他的经济规模（比如艾克1999，巴伦和霍林谢德2004，巴泽尔1968，彻纳东尼1995，道格拉斯.克雷格.尼森2001，科普菲尔2005，莱维特1983，美丽华2003，帕帕万斯里奥1997，苏玲2004，奎尔奇1999）。实际上，随着全球化品牌标准化他们的营销策略然后混合，这样会在很多营销领域剩下一大笔的开销（比如R&D促销）。这样会允许品牌在市场行为上有更多的投资或者有比当地竞争者更具竞争性的价格。此外，随着销售渠道的全球化，相对于区域性品牌，国际品牌看起来会有更好的议价能力。（巴伦2004，彻纳东尼1995）。权威的国际品牌价值也会使得这些品牌能够更好地征服新市场（道格拉斯2001），进军新产品合品牌扩张（奎尔奇1999）。

然而国际化品牌的这些的重要优势大部分都在于供给面。全球标准化同样也会成为附加值的来源，唯一的始终不变的品牌形象贯穿品牌市场。（美丽华2003，苏玲2004）。由此约翰逊和朗凯恩发现全球化品牌合更大的价值联系在一起。当斯蒂恩坎普，巴特拉和奥尔登（2003）发现品牌全球化强烈影响了品牌认知度和品牌声誉，他们通过消费者的感受出众地解释了这种认知度。然而，考虑到文化差异是最大的障碍的标准化或者适应性问题的需求方

品牌营销的原文以及外文翻译

面，这些附加值对于消费者是次要的。

实际上，即使在全球化时代，文化差异仍然十分重要，它广泛地影响着消费者的行为。一般来说，霍夫斯泰德（1980）使用“精神的编程规则”这一术语来强调文化在人们一般行为中的重要性，尽管他承认人性的重要性同时也反对文化决定论。在更加特别的领域，考虑到消费问题，克兰里夫和蓝宏施（2007，250页）提到，相比于其它的因素，文化是消费者看法的首要决定因素，行为和生活方式，因此，他们需要在产品、获取过程以及服务中得到满足。

因此，区域性品牌接近当地的文化，可以更好地构建与消费者之间的关系，同时也会更好的响应他们的要求。所以这种接近是它们（区域品牌）最重要的优势之一。

然而，全球化品牌未必会和尊重消费者的文化冲突。相反，在市场全球化的蓝图上，莱维特认为，全球化品牌在标准化过程中寻求的规模经济最终会因为消费者在市场中的聚集而实现。由此，他依靠消费者文化并且将它用作品牌标准化的有力论证。莱维特认为，技术是人类选择权中最强大的决定因素。的确，通过“无产阶级化”，旅游、运输、和通讯，它以全球化的模式参与其中，更准确地解决消费者的体会和欲望。因此，这些体会和欲望通过现代化，均匀地分布在以文化标识的新的世界中。在这里，文化差异不仅仅是过去的事情（莱维特1983），在这种新的均匀消费者文化的基础上，这时，品牌全球化成为消费真需求的最好的回答，同时也是供应方面最好的选择。