市场营销文献翻译.doc

广州大学Brand internationalization strategy beyond the standardization/adaptation dichotomy. (fragment)Nabil GHANTOUSGREFI- Universit Paul CzanneAix-Marseille III, France.19 Bd Emile ZOLA13100- Aix En Provence- France.0033 6 72 07 04 51presented at the Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management, 15-16thApril 2008, Birmingham- UK.* The author would like to thank Pr. Jean PHILIPPE for his valuable comments on earlierversions of this paper.Brand internationalization strategy beyond the standardization/adaptation dichotomy.AbstractThe standardization vs. adaptation choice of international brands should no longer be seen asdogmatic nor as a rigid dichotomy. Instead, it should be regarded as a combination of thesetwo options, depending on contingent factors at a given time on a given market. Building on areview of the different visions of consumers culture, we present a modelling of theintermediate solutions combining both elements of standardization and adaptation, and that isbetter suited today for demand and supply driven considerations. Thus, we first delimitate thequestions that need to be considered when formulating the international marketing strategyand mix, and then we present a simplified framework of two dimensions, products globalvocation and demands global homogeneity, leading to a matrix of four strategic options forinternational 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 aninternational 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 optionsconcerning its strategic and operational marketing decisions.There is no consensus today in the international marketing literature on a unique terminologyfor international brands (Hsieh 2002, Medina and Duffy 1998). Nevertheless, despite agrowing 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 itsmarketing across its different markets, to the local brand that adapts its marketing to culturaland socio-economic settings (e.g. Aaker and Joachimsthaler 1999, Kapferer 2005, Van Raaij1997). This criterion reflects the importance of the standardization vs. adaptation question ininternational branding, often considered as one of the major research and managerialproblems (Prime and Usunier 2003).However, many researchers consider this opposition between the global and the local brand asa rigid dichotomy (Buzzell 1968, Russell and Valenzuela 2005, Svensson 2002), and proposeto replace it with a more realistic brand internationalization continuum (e.g. de Chernatony,Halliburton and Bernath 1995, Hsieh and Lindridge 2005, Papavassiliou and Stathakopoulos1997). For instance, Schuiling and Kapferer (2004) consider a third option between these twoextremes, the international brand, which standardizes only a part of its marketing strategy andtactics.The object of this article is thus twofold. First, building on the capital importance ofconsumers culture for branding, we review the literature to present the social and culturalunderpinnings of each of these three branding options. Then, in the second section, we presenta simplified framework delimitating both the strategic questions brand managers face and thesolutions they could consider when choosing the internationalization strategy of their brands.Finally we conclude by presenting the limitations of our work and future researchorientations.Social and cultural underpinnings of international branding strategy:The question of whether to standardize or to adapt the international marketing has receivedgreat attention during the last forty years, both options presenting positive arguments as wellas serious limitations. In this framework, economies of scale are and by far the mainadvantage of global brands (e.g. Aaker et al. 1999, Barron and Hollingshead 2004, Buzzell1968, 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, asglobal brands standardize their marketing strategy and mix, this generates important costsavings in many areas of their marketing (e.g. R&D, promotion), thus allowing the brand topoor more investments into its marketing actions and/or to have more competitive prices thanits local competitors. Furthermore, with distribution channels going global, global brandsseem to have much better bargaining power than local ones (Barron et al. 2004, deChernatony et al. 1995). Important international brand equity also allows these brands tobetter 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 (deChernatony et al. 1995), global standardization can also be a source of added value forconsumers. In fact, standardizing marketing strategy and mix can assure a strong, unique andconsistent 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 impactsperceived quality and brand prestige. Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (1999) explain this betterperception by consumers feeling of belonging to a superior, more prestigious segment whenconsuming global brands. Nevertheless, this added value for consumers is minor whenconsidering the demand side of the standardization/adaptation issue, where culturaldifferences are still the main barrier to global branding.In fact, even in the globalization era, cultural differences are still important today and widelyimpact consumers behaviour. In a general way, Hofstede (1980) uses the terms of “mentalprogramming” to emphasise the importance of culture on peoples general behaviour, eventhough he recognizes the role of individual personality and refutes cultural determinism. On amore specific ground, concerning consumption issues, Cleveland and Laroche (2007, p.250)note that, “more than any other factor, culture is the prime determinant of consumersattitudes, 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 brands marketing actionsaccording to their cultural backgrounds and lenses, in such a way that the brand perception bythe 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 withtheir consumers and to better respond to their needs; therefore this proximity is one of theirmost important assets (Schuiling et al. 2004).Nevertheless, a global brand vision is not necessarily in conflict with the respect ofconsumers 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 inits standardization process can finally be achieved because of the convergence of consumersacross markets. Thus, he builds on consumers culture and uses it as the main argument forbrand standardization. According to Levitt (1983), technology is the most powerfuldeterminant of human preferences. Indeed, by “proletarianizing” tourism, transport andcommunication, it participates in the convergence of cultures on a global scale, and moreprecisely of consumers tastes and desires. Therefore, these tastes and desires arehomogenized in a new world culture mainly characterised by modernity, where culturaldifferences are no more than “vestiges of the past” (Levitt 1983). Building on this newhomogeneous consumer culture, brand globalization becomes at the same time the most suitedresponse 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19