How Local/Global is your Brand?

Abstract

This paper contends that the logical way to classify brands is to use a methodology based on consumer perceptions rather than academic/practitioner criteria, and that this may enable managers to more accurately define brand marketing strategies for current brands or relaunch efforts. It tests this theory using a quantitative instrument to assess consumer perceptions of local/global brand categorisation, with representative samples. Currently, most of the literature relating to the different typologies of brands (global, local, etc.) has been founded on academic/practitioner categorisations based on objective criteria. Consumers, on the other hand, do not know these categorisations based on objective criteria and may well see the brands differently. Existing research to categorise brands from the consumer's perspective has been conducted with qualitative techniques using small samples, meaning the results obtained are difficult to generalise. This paper relies on the results of an empirical research study based on a survey carried out among Mexican consumers using a new methodology that follows the suggested categorisation principles of Steenkamp and De Jong (2010). The results provide an actual categorisation of leading brands into ‘global’, ‘local’, ‘glocal’ and ‘functional’, based on consumers' perspectives, and reveal important differences in the categorisation of brands vs the traditional approaches found in the literature.

Perceived Brand Globalness/Localness: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Directions for Further Research

“…According to Özsomer and Altaras (2008), global and local brands can consist of either a supply-side perspective (i.e., from the company standpoint) or a demand-side perspective (i.e., from the consumer standpoint). The supply-side perspective views a global (local) brand as one that operates across a range of countries (in a limited geographic region) with a standardized (localized) marketing approach (e.g., Llonch-Andreu, López-Lomelí, and Gómez-Villanueva 2016; Loebnitz and Grunert 2019). However, because consumers may or may not be aware of a brand’s international operations beyond their own market (Fastoso and González-Jiménez 2018; Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019), research has devoted ample attention to how perceptions of the globalness (localness) of a brand affect brand-related outcomes.…”

Developing brand meaning theory: the interplay of tangible attributes and intangible associations in relation to local food brands

“…However, the sequence of the layers varies as she reflects over the years. Hirschman's (1980Hirschman's ( , 1998 work is important for this research as these layers of meaning reflect earlier scholars' assertions about anthropological, sociological and psychological meanings (Lindesmith and Strauss, 1949;Linton, 1936;Szalay and Deese, 1978 as cited by Hirschman, 1980). Her work is focused on the idiosyncratic, subcultural and cultural layers.…”

“…This is essentially rational and logical, and meaning relates closely to factual knowledge (Katz, 1972). Anthropological and sociological meanings are subjective (Linton, 1936), relationship-based and symbolic (Lindesmith and Strauss, 1949). Psychological meaning further underpins this subjectivity and notes any affective reactions to stimuli (Szalay andDeese, 1978, cited by Hirschman, 1980).…”

“…It has a symbolic and relational contribution to meaning. Sociologists Lindesmith and Strauss (1949) contend that an object's meaning is a relationship that is determined by responses made to it. They suggest that meaning is a mental concept, a metaphysical notion that may be symbolic or evident within the object itself.…”

“…Functionally local brands can be developed better to meet local consumers’ needs (Kapferer, 2002). Symbolically local brands can emphasise and embed local cultural connections using local themes and symbols to enhance their positioning (Llonch-Andreu et al , 2016; Alden et al , 2006; Steenkamp, 2017).…”