-
International market selectionand segmentation: a two-stage
modelCharlotte Gaston-Breton
Department of Business Administration, University Carlos III of
Madrid,Madrid, Spain and University Paris Quest Nanterre, Paris,
France, and
Oscar Martn MartnDepartment of Business Administration, Public
University of Navarre,
Pamplona, Spain and Department of Business Studies,Uppsala
University, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a two-stage
international market selection andsegmentation model addressed to
help decision makers such as foreign institutions and
market-seeking multinational enterprises (MNEs) identify and select
the most suitable European countries andgroups of
consumers.Design/methodology/approach The first stage is conceived
as a macro-segmentation screeningprocess based on market
attractiveness. The second is a micro-segmentation process
addressed toidentify which groups of people are most similar across
Europe in terms of social and personal values.The authors model is
rooted in previous assumptions and findings from international
marketselection (IMS) and Ingleharts theory of material and
post-material values.Findings The model is applied to the current
27 European Union (EU) member states and isvalidated through the
groups of countries empirically obtained. The model allows us to
cluster theEuropean countries by market attractiveness, group the
European consumers by personal and socialvalues and describe the
value orientation of the resulting clusters.Research
limitations/implications The authors used cross-sectional data to
validate theirmodel. Among the implications, they encourage
international marketing and business scholars tomake use of
Ingleharts framework.Practical implications Institutional decision
makers and market-seeking MNEs can follow oradapt the prescribed
model in order to identify the most promising and similar European
countriesand groups of consumers. Public policy makers can gain an
in-depth understanding of specificpersonal and social values
allowing them to shape public policy agendas.Originality/value This
paper contributes to the existing literature on IMS and
segmentation inthree ways: it proposes an original and parsimonious
two-stage IMS and segmentation integrativemodel for both
country-level and consumer-related analyses (suitable to handle and
reduce theEuropean diversity that decision makers have to face when
dealing with the general public orconsumer products); it applies
theoretically grounded general segmentation bases and an
alternativeestablished framework of consumer values (Ingleharts
value system), and it adopts an updated andpan-European perspective
over the enlarged EU.
Keywords European Union, Market segmentation, Consumer
behaviour, Multinational companies,Public policy
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
Received August 2009Revised February 2010Accepted January
2011
International Marketing ReviewVol. 28 No. 3, 2011
pp. 267-290r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651331111132857
The authors wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers for
their diligent and insightfulcomments on previous iterations of the
manuscript. This research is financially supported by theSpanish
Ministry of Education & Science project quoted
SEJ2007-65897.
Because one of the special issue Guest Editors was a co-author
of this paper, to preventconflict of interest it was submitted
separately to the Editor of IMR and handled at arms
lengththroughout the process via the central IMR office.
267
Internationalmarket selection
-
1. IntroductionThe identification of promising foreign target
markets is a critical issue in internationalmarketing and
international business research, strategy and management. Its
capitalimportance arises from the fact that its inter-relationships
with other strategicdecisions, such as mode of entry (Koch, 2001),
foreign marketing programmes(Papadopoulos and Denis, 1988) and,
ultimately, success and performance (Broutherset al., 2009) have
been widely acknowledged. The evaluation of foreign target
marketshas been approached from two complementary levels: first, a
market (country)perspective usually under the stream of research
called international marketselection (IMS) (e.g. Brewer, 2001;
Rahman, 2003) and second, a consumer perspective,which can be
labeled international consumer segmentation (e.g. Kamakura et al.,
1994;Kolman et al., 2003) and involves the segmentation of
consumers across countries. Thispaper is a step toward a higher
integration of both perspectives by proposing a two-stage model of
IMS and segmentation in the process leading to the identification
ofpromising European target markets.
Most IMS and segmentation studies use a diversity of data such
as economic,geographical, political, cultural, etc. variables (e.g.
Whitelock and Jobber, 2004).Consumer data, however, and especially
the concept of values are under-investigateddespite their relevance
and robustness in cross-cultural research. In IMS, the lack
ofattention to consumer values is particularly acute, since neither
the old nor most of therecent studies consider them. An exception
is the work by Sakarya et al. (2007) whichincludes Hofstedes
work-related values-based framework to measure cultural distancein
their preliminary assessment of promising emerging markets.
However, theseresearchers state (p. 218):
Although the importance and impact of culture on IMS has been
explicitly recognizedthrough the psychic distance construct in
internationalization literature, neither thetraditional models nor
the normative market selection process models incorporate it as
asignificant dimension into the screening process.
In international segmentation, studies using consumer data are
also under-represented(Steenkamp and Ter Hofstede, 2002) presumably
because of the difficulty and costinvolved in its collection.
Nevertheless, consumer characteristics and values providerelevant
information for managerial decisions when identifying both
important andstable international segments (Burgess, 1992). In
particular, consumer values are theunderlying determinants of
consumers needs, attitudes and behaviors (Vinson et al.,1977; Kim
et al., 2002) which illuminate critical marketing dimensions
related to, forinstance, advertising and product positioning (De
Mooij, 2003). Managers values havebeen also found to significantly
influence strategic decisions and the export performanceof the firm
(Sousa et al., 2010). Therefore, we designed our study to cover
this gap, byusing consumer values in an integrative approach of IMS
and segmentation.
A second research gap and opportunity arises from the fact that
the segmentationbases used in previous studies on international
segmentation, especially at theconsumer-level, are mostly domain
specific (Steenkamp and Ter Hofstede, 2002). Inother words, given
that the data collected by researchers is generally based on
aparticular industry, it leads to practical implications only valid
for those sectors suchas the financial (Bijmolt et al., 2004) or
the food (Askegaard and Madsen, 1998;Ter Hofstede et al., 1999)
industries. However, general segmentation bases (e.g.
marketattractiveness and consumer values) are independent of
concrete objects and are morestable and enduring than
domain-specific variables (e.g. technological and economic
268
IMR28,3
-
characteristics of the industry, consumer benefits in using
specific products) whichmeans that they can provide decision makers
with general and long-term guidance forinternational marketing and
communication strategies (Van Raaij and Verhallen, 1994).Also
considering that the IMS literature widely supports the use of
generalsegmentation bases in a first stage of country screening
(e.g. Cavusgil et al., 2004), suchas the one proposed by our
two-stage model, we want to alternatively apply generalsegmentation
bases both at the country and the consumer level. More
specifically, wedecided to build our model on established general
segmentation bases such as marketattractiveness at the macro-level
as well as consumer values at the micro-level.
In order to identify a third research gap, we start by accepting
the economicglobalization process (Levitt, 1983) as the most
significant trend in internationalmarkets over the last 50 years.
Within this context, economically integrated blockshave proven to
be one of the most important phenomena in progress worldwide.Among
all of these blocks, the European Union (EU) constitutes the most
advancedprocess of integration. This attractive and changing region
offers excellent researchopportunities and deserves new and updated
studies considering the challengesthat the two recent enlargements
(ten new countries in 2004 and two in 2007,
seehttp://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/) and the subsequent increase in
heterogeneityassociated to them pose to companies targeting this
block. In this light, severalstudies have focussed on the different
approaches to market segmentation (for a recentreview see Lemmens
et al., 2007) and marketing strategies (Chung, 2005; Taylor
andOkazaki, 2006) that can be applied across the EU or, at least,
across a number ofEuropean countries. Nevertheless, studies on the
enlarged single European market arenotably lacking and previous
research on marketing strategies has mostly resulted inmixed
conclusions supporting either the idea of pan-European or
multidomesticstrategies (Lemmens et al., 2007). This research gap,
i.e. the lack of studies on theenlarged EU, is particularly
pronounced as EU marketing studies have addressedissues in specific
country contexts, industries, cultures and geographic areas
ratherthan being able to tackle pan-European marketing issues
(Paliwoda and Marinova,2007, p. 239). Therefore, we designed our
model to handle and reduce the diversity ofthe enlarged European
block that decision makers have to face when dealing with
thegeneral public or consumer products.
The objective of our study is to cover the above-mentioned gaps.
Our researchquestion is, therefore, whether or not general
segmentation bases can be effectivelyused in a new IMS and
segmentation model for decision makers such as foreigninstitutions
(e.g. governments, chambers of commerce, foreign trade institutes,
etc.)and market-seeking MNEs (Dunning, 1998). More specifically, we
propose a two-stagemarket selection and segmentation model by
integrating market attractiveness andconsumer values as general
segmentation bases and aiming to help decision makersidentify and
screen the most suitable European macro-regions, countries and
groups ofconsumers. This paper contributes to the existing
literature on IMS and segmentationin three ways: it proposes an
original and parsimonious two-stage IMS andsegmentation integrative
model for both country-level and consumer-related analyses;it
applies theoretically grounded general segmentation bases and an
alternativeestablished framework of consumer values (Ingleharts
value system); and it adopts anupdated and pan-European perspective
over the enlarged EU.
In the remaining body of this paper, we first explain the
theoretical basesand propose our two-step model. Second, we present
the methodology used to test it,describe the two datasets employed
for this objective and then discuss the findings.
269
Internationalmarket selection
-
To conclude, we identify the implications for policy makers,
managers and academicsand finally address the papers limitations
and suggest future research avenues.
2. Literature, theory and modelAn established stream of
literature focussing on IMS has frequently proposedsegmentation
models at the country level to screen countries (e.g. Cavusgil et
al., 2004),while there is also a growing number of studies in
international marketing andsociology that focus on cross-cultural
differences in terms of values and value systems(e.g. Esmer and
Pettersson, 2007). Against this background, we propose an
integrativetwo-stage model (see Figure 1) rooted, respectively, in
IMS prescriptions and thevalue system segmentation bases proposed
by Inglehart (1997) which we apply tothe enlarged EU through
general (vs domain specific) segmentation bases. Thetheoretical
background and explanation for the model then follows.
2.1 The European macro-segmentation process: an IMS
perspectiveMost European segmentation studies have included
country-level segmentation baseswhich typically comprise a mix of
economic, political, geographic, demographic,etc. information
without a clear guiding criterion. Since different variables
inducedifferent classifications, selecting the appropriate
macro-segmentation bases is criticalduring the screening stage of
the model, and theoretical bases must be proposed. Wesuggest that
the relevant variables for macro-segmentation be identified and
borrowedfrom the IMS literature. In fact, researchers on IMS have
discussed and supported theefficiency and effectiveness of
sequential screening processes when deciding whetheror not to enter
or expand a particular market (Cavusgil, 1985). Most
sequentialdecision-making IMS models include an initial screening
stage based on low cost,comparative, and widely available secondary
information indicators about countriessuch as those provided by the
World Bank (e.g. Cavusgil et al., 2004). In this light,Russow and
Okoroafo (1996, p. 46) conclude from their review of the literature
onmarket screening that all researchers propose different criteria
and measures.However, market attractiveness is the aspect most
consistently included in previous
Stage 1 (screening): Macro-segmentation (country-level)(based on
International market selection guiding criteria of market
attractiveness)
Market size/potential Market development
Stage 2 (identification): Micro-segmentation
(consumer-level)(based on Ingleharts theory of value change and
value system of traditional/secular-
rational and survival/self-expression dimensions)
Personal values Social values (values in raising children)
Figure 1.A two-stage internationalmarkets selection
andsegmentation model
270
IMR28,3
-
research on IMS to discriminate among foreign markets (Ayal et
al., 1987; Bennett,1995; Nowak, 1997; Rahman, 2003). In this
regard, two dimensions of marketattractiveness are usually
distinguished: market size/potential (e.g. Samli, 1972;Douglas and
Craig, 1982; Cavusgil, 1990; Brewer, 2001; Papadopoulos et al.,
2002) andmarket development (e.g. Liander et al., 1967; Samli,
1972; Day et al., 1988; Rostow, 1990).Similarly, Russow and
Okoroafo (1996, p. 49) also remark that The internationalmarket
screening literature is highly supportive of using market size and
the level ofeconomic development for identifying potential
opportunities.
Market size/potential, on the one hand, has to do with the size
of the market andthe amount of sales, profits, etc. that can be
obtained from entry and throughout thepresence of firms in that
market or in a planning period. This construct is expectedto be
reflected in a variety of indicators, all relating to the size of
the economy. Indeed,international trade theories suggest a strong
relationship between potentialinternational business transactions
and market size (Sakarya et al., 2007, p. 215).The countries GDP
and the number of inhabitants are just some of the examples,which,
despite the varying importance per product category and industry,
are expectedto positively correlate with a higher market
size/potential for most products and firms.Market development, on
the other hand, captures the quality of the market in termsof its
socio-economic advancement or progress. Therefore, aspects such as,
forinstance, per capita income and employment rates are believed to
reflect levels ofmarket development.
Based on both key dimensions of market attractiveness, our model
proposes aparsimonious initial macro-segmentation screening stage.
We make the criticalassumption that, in the EU these economic
aspects are, overall, the most relevantmacro-characteristics to be
considered by foreign entrants. This assumption issustained by the
fact that, as a consequence of the integration process and the
resultingsingle market, there are very similar legal and political
environments and marketbarriers faced by firms operating or willing
to operate in the block, while economicsize/potential and
development (and culture) vary notably across countries. Thismore
uniform legal and political environment is clearly a visible trend
since therecent reforms involved by the Treaty of Lisbon which
provides the EuropeanParliament with new powers regarding, for
instance, EU legislation and policymaking.
2.2 The European micro-segmentation process: Ingleharts
frameworkWith the exception of the studies by Bijmolt et al. (2004)
and Gielens and Steenkamp(2004), research on European market
selection and segmentation has exclusively usedeither
macro-segmentation at a country level or micro-segmentation at a
consumerlevel (for an excellent review, see Lemmens et al., 2007).
In general, high costs and lowavailability of international
databases have resulted in most studies on Europeansegmentation
using the country level as the basic unit of analysis (Bijmolt et
al., 2004).Alternatively, three classes of micro-segmentation bases
have been used in theEuropean context. They range from
product-specific characteristics, such as attitudestoward
attributes (Askegaard and Madsen, 1998; Ter Hofstede et al., 1999;
Bijmolt et al.,2004), to domain-specific features such as
lifestyles (Boote, 1983), and generalcharacteristics such as
central values (Kamakura et al., 1994; Lascu et al., 1996;Kolman et
al., 2003). We are particularly interested in the latter variables
since theyfollow a general segmentation basis and have demonstrated
their universality,centrality and stability (Schwartz and Bilsky,
1990).
271
Internationalmarket selection
-
Values have been defined as enduring beliefs that a specific
mode of conduct or endstate of existence is personally or socially
preferable to an opposite or converse mode ofconduct or end state
of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5). Consumer behavior literature
issupportive of a general relationship between values and behavior
(Vinson et al., 1977).Therefore, values are also an excellent basis
for clustering consumers and countrieswith cultural communalities.
Actually, decision makers willing to target the EU will
beinterested in the identification of potential groups of European
consumers sharingcloser values in order to infer how to develop and
execute their marketing strategies.Thus, in the context of our
integrative two-stage model and with the purpose ofidentifying
potential groups of consumers for the standardization of, for
instance,communication messages we propose the inclusion of
consumers values.
Although several models have been proposed in order to identify
the set of valuesthat could accurately define consumer segments
(Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991), themost commonly used framework in
international segmentation is Hofstedes (1980)cultural model
(Steenkamp, 2001) and dimensions. Consequently, some
Europeansegmentation studies have relied on these dimensions (e.g.
Kale, 1995; Kolman et al., 2003).However, due to the aggregate
level of analysis and the work-oriented nature of thesedimensions,
attention should also be paid to general human values in order to
measureconsumer values with adequacy (Kamakura and Mazzon,
1991).
In this regard, Rokeachs (1973) traditional social value survey
which consists of18 instrumental values (ideal modes of behavior)
and 18 terminal values (ideal endstates of existence) served as a
basis to identify cross-national segments in the UnitedKingdom,
Germany and Italy (Kamakura et al., 1994) as well as in Poland and
Romania(Lascu et al., 1996). Building on, and extending Rokeachs
(1973) work, Schwartz (1994)developed a typology of seven
motivational values which have been largely usedto attempt to
explain cultural differences in various regions, including
Europeancountries (Steenkamp, 2001). However, this framework has
not been used forpan-European segmentation. More surprisingly,
Ingleharts theory of value change(1977, 1990, 1997) another
remarkable value system has never been applied todomestic, European
or international segmentation despite its noteworthy and
solidbackground in the sociological and political fields.
American political scientist Ronald Inglehart who leads the
World Values Survey(WVS) suggests that societies can be classified
according to their degree ofmodernity. By exploring the data
collected from the WVS since 1981, Inglehart and hiscolleagues
(see, e.g., Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Inglehart
and Welzel,2005) showed that modern societies reflect the shift
from survival to self-expressionvalues. In addition, they found
another dimension of cross-cultural variation whichalso reflects
the modernization process: the shift from traditional values to
moresecular-rational values, which emphasizes that social and
political systems areno longer based on a system of beliefs but
rather on the faculty of human reason.Table I gives an overview of
the value orientations and the main items related to
bothdimensions.
Hofstede, Schwartz, Inglehart and others all propose relevant
cultural frameworksbased on large survey data. Nevertheless,
Ingleharts value system offers scholarsand managers the opportunity
to implement an alternative framework based on thelargest study
ever conducted in the world, using publicly available data
(seewww.worldvaluessurvey.com) which has been updated in the
European context inthe Eurobarometer studies (see
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/). Therefore, wefollow
Ingleharts framework to provide theoretical foundation to our model
and, as
272
IMR28,3
-
we will further explain in the next section, to select the
indicators of the secular-rational (vs traditional) and
self-expression (vs survival) dimensions in terms ofpersonally
driven values and socially driven values (values in raising
children) in orderto characterize Europeans values.
3. Methodology3.1 DataWe apply our two-stage model to the
current 27 EU members. The use of the census ofEU members allows us
to cover all of the EU variation in terms of marketattractiveness
as well as consumer values. In addition, in line with our purpose
ofillustrating a model that could be easily implemented by decision
makers, we use twosecondary information sources to collect our
data. In the first stage, we employ theWorld Bank Development
Indicators (2007) to measure market size/potential andmarket
development as general segmentation bases. In the second stage, we
extractdata from the Eurobarometer surveys to capture Ingleharts
value dimensions.
3.2 Operationalization of the variablesThe macro-segmentation
screening stage is based on market attractiveness, which ismeasured
through market size/potential and market development as specified
inTable II. In order to illustrate the model, market size/potential
is operationalizedthrough four established reflective indicators
(Jarvis et al., 2003) that clearly capturethe expected content of
this construct and show high internal consistency(Cronbachs a
0.986): GDP (e.g. Douglas and Craig, 1982; Sakarya et al.,
2007;
Shift from survival toself-expression values
Shift from traditional tosecular-rational values
Characteristics ofvalue orientation
Rather than mere physical security,subjective well-being,
self-expression and quality of life arevalued
Decisions, political rule and sensemaking are no longer based on
asystem of beliefs, but aresystematically scrutinized by thefaculty
of human reason
Personal valuesrelating to bothdimensions
Survival values emphasize thefollowing:Democracy is not
necessarily thebest form of governmentRespect for other cultures is
notimportantLiberty aspirations are notimportantSelf-expression
values emphasizethe opposite
Traditional values emphasize thefollowing:Religion is
importantPatriotism is importantRespect for authority is
importantSecular-rational values emphasizethe opposite
Social valuesrelating to bothdimensions
Hard work is an important value inraising childrenImagination,
tolerance and respectfor others are not important valuesin raising
children
Obedience and religious faith areimportant values in
raisingchildren
Note: Only the most important items are presented above although
many other values are measuredin the World Values Surveys
Table I.The two dimension ofmodernization: from
survival to self-expressionvalues and from
traditional to secular-rational values
273
Internationalmarket selection
-
Factor/variable
Indicators
Scale
Min
Max
Mean
Standarddeviation
Market
size/potential
GDP(2006)
CurrentUSD,million
5,748
2,906,681
534,145.30
818,012.06
Population
(2006)
Number
ofinhabitants
406,020
82,310,995
18,336,011.07
23,179,181.43
Imports(2006)
1,000million
Euros
3.7
723.7
139.17
181.25
Energyconsumption
(2004)
Electricity,in
million
Kwh
2,216
614,164
121,487.33
164,026.05
Market
developmentGDPper
capita
Purchasingpow
erstandards
(EU-27100)
37.1
278.6
98.68
47.01
Total
employmentrate
(2006)
%54.5
77.4
64.98
6.96
Gross
dom
esticexpenditure
onR&D(2005)
%of
GDP
0.4
3.9
1.38
0.92
Levelof
internet
access
(2006)
%of
householdswithinternet
access
athom
e14
8045.11
19.46
Corruption
perceptionsindex
(2006)
1-10
3.1
9.6
6.62
1.86
Table II.Measures and descriptivestatistics of
marketattractiveness
274
IMR28,3
-
Malhotra et al., 2009), population (e.g. Samli, 1977; Cavusgil
et al., 2004; Sakarya et al.,2007), imports (e.g. Green and
Allaway, 1985) and energy consumption (e.g. Douglasand Craig,
1982). Market development is measured through five indicators which
alsovisibly capture the domain of the construct and present high
internal consistency(a 0.910): GDP per capita, total employment
rate, gross domestic expenditure onR&D, level of internet
access and the corruption perceptions index. These indicatorshave
been frequently used to measure market development and related
constructs. Forinstance, Cavusgil et al. (2004) used GDP per capita
as an indicator of prosperity oreconomic well-being; DiRienzo et
al. (2007) and Russow and Okoroafo (1996) as that ofeconomic
development; and Dow and Karunaratna (2006) for industrial
development.Also, Cavusgil et al. (2004) found unemployment rate
loading in a standard of livingfactor and internet hosts in that of
development of the infrastructure.
The micro-segmentation stage is based on Ingleharts values
indicators. Inglehartand his colleagues (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart
and Baker, 2000; Inglehart and Welzel,2005) used data from the
first four waves of the WVS for 74 countries. Morespecifically,
Inglehart and Baker (2000) identified several values and items
stronglylinked to the survival/self-expression dimension such as
hard work is one of the mostimportant things to teach a child,
imagination is not one of the most important thingsto teach a child
and democracy is not necessarily the best form of
government(correlation with survival values 0.64, 0.62 and 0.45,
respectively). The most recentset of analyses conducted by
Inglehart and Welzel (2005) among 78 societies surveyedin the
2000-2001 WVS shows that traditional values are especially
reflected by thefollowing items: god is very important in
respondents life (factor loading 0.91) andit is important for a
child to learn obedience and religion (factor loading
0.88).Secular-rational values emphasize the opposite. In summary,
many indicators relatingto personal values (e.g. democracy or
religion) and several social values or values inraising children
(e.g. tolerance, obedience, hard work, etc.) are correlated to
these twodimensions.
Similarly, the European Values Survey (EVS) has measured the
indicators of thesecular-rational and self-expression value
orientations through a pool of items since1981. More recent
datasets like the Spring 2008 Standard Eurobarometer and the
2005Special Eurobarometer titled Values, science and technology use
the same indicators.The Standard and Special Eurobarometer are
cross-national longitudinal surveys,designed to compare and gauge
trends within member states of the EU. In the sameline as Bijmolt
et al. (2004), we consider that using this set of surveys makes
aneffective contribution to our study. First, we turn to the set of
values proposed in theStandard and Special Eurobarometer to study
European inhabitants personal andsocial values since its content is
better adapted to European reality than any of thedifferent
potential cultural or social values traditionally used in a
plethora of otherstudies. Second, it covers the population (aged 15
years and over) of all EU countriesin recent periods (2005 and
2008). Third, the scores provided are based on more than30,000
face-to-face interviews in peoples homes and thus it makes up the
largest andmost representative available sample of EU respondents.
Fourth, these value scores areupdated, so this avoids the risk of
making decisions based on pictures taken orsituations observed in
the past. In line with our theoretical framework and oursuggested
model, we decided to combine the eight childrens upbringing
valuesmeasured in the 2005 Special Eurobarometer with the two most
important personalvalues indicators in terms of correlation with
Ingleharts dimensions which wererecently measured in the 2008
Standard Eurobarometer and described in Table III.
275
Internationalmarket selection
-
3.3 Data analysis techniqueAs in most studies on segmentation,
we use cluster analysis as the main technique ofdata analysis. In
both macro- and micro-segmentation stages, we first explore
thedimensionality of our indicators by means of factor analysis
and, second, we create theclusters from the factor scores obtained.
This procedure is frequent in the literature(e.g. Askegaard and
Madsen, 1998; Steenkamp, 2001) and avoids the problem ofcorrelated
variables and the influence of an unbalanced number of items per
dimensionover the multidimensional distances that the cluster
algorithm estimates whengrouping objects. We performed a
hierarchical cluster analysis using the squaredEuclidean distance
as the measure of countries proximity in regard to the factors.
4. Findings4.1 The identification of European countries
attractivenessWe started by carrying out a principal components
analysis of our nine marketattractiveness indicators, with Varimax
rotation and Kaiser normalization. We foundtwo dimensions,
explaining 84.8 percent of the variance (43.2 percent and 41.6
percent,respectively). In the first of these dimensions, the four
measures of market size/potential loaded together, while in the
second axis, the five indicators of marketdevelopment also grouped
together (see Table IV).
From the factor scores, macro-segmentation produced three large
clusters ofcountries which show higher and lower attractiveness in
terms of market size/potentialand development. In closer detail,
and reflected in the dendrogram and theagglomeration coefficients,
we find five large and developed economies in the firstcluster:
France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. In the second cluster, we
found eightcountries that perform highly on market development but
obtain modest scores onmarket size/potential indicators: Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg,Ireland, Sweden and the
Netherlands. Finally, the third cluster is composed of the 14less
attractive markets taking together both dimensions (see Figure
2).
Further, the second and third groups of countries are closer to
each other in terms ofmarket size/potential than to the most
attractive cluster. Since we use this first stage
Factor/variable Indicators Scale MeanStandarddeviation
Personal values Religion %a 8.26 6.87Democracy % 25.85 8.90
Social values(childrensupbringing)
Obedience %b 55.96 13.93Hard work % 54.70 27.09Determination,
perseverance % 65.07 10.98Thrift, economizing and avoiding waste %
55.85 12.29Tolerance and respect for other people % 81.11 7.61Sense
of responsibility % 82.33 5.41Independence % 55.26 12.11Imagination
% 48.44 11.58
Notes: aPercentage of people identifying religion and democracy
as the most important values forthem personally; bpercentage of
people that indicated that these values are very important
qualitiesthat children might be encouraged to learn at home
Table III.Measures and descriptivestatistics of personal
andsocial values
276
IMR28,3
-
as a screening procedure in the context of IMS and with an
expectedly relativelystable result and long-term perspective,
decision makers may decide discard theselection of the third
cluster (or the cluster with less attractiveness if other product-
orindustry-specific operationalizations of the constructs are
used), at least as the mainoption, and focus their analysis on the
other two groups.
Figure 2.Macro-segmentation:
countries factor scores
ComponentRotated component matrix 1 2
Level of internet access 0.048 0.936Corruption perceptions index
0.047 0.934Gross domestic expenditure on R&D 0.235 0.831Total
employment rate 0.150 0.820GDP per capita 0.156 0.734Population
0.986 0.048Energy consumption 0.985 0.230GDP 0.978 0.123Imports
0.942 0.157Variance extracted (%) 43.2 41.6
Notes: Extraction method: Principal component analysis; Rotation
method: Varimax with Kaisernormalization
Table IV.Principal components
analysis of marketattractiveness indicators
277
Internationalmarket selection
-
4.2 Dimensionality of the European consumers valuesIn the second
stage, we applied the micro-segmentation based on the personal and
socialvalues (two personal values and eight specific values in
raising children) identified byIngleharts value system. Again, we
first explored the dimensionality of our measuresand found three
main factors with eigenvalues over one, and more than one
indicator,reflecting survival values, self-expression values and
traditional values (see TableV). These three factors retain 75.6
percent of the variance and nine of the initial tenvalues. We left
out the sense of responsibility item because it loaded alone in a
fourthdimension, which did not properly explain the variability of
the countries values.
These three dimensions are similar, but not identical, to
Ingleharts valuesclassification since they are based exclusively on
a recent sample of Europeanconsumers. However, we consider them
useful as they provide a relevant segmentationbasis to the decision
makers who are currently targeting or willing to target
consumerslocated in the EU. According to Inglehart and Baker
(2000), survival values emphasizemostly that hard work is one of
the most important things to teach a child and thatdemocracy is not
necessarily the best form of government. Our first dimension
ofsurvival values, which explains 30.7 percent of the variance,
does yet first andpositively reflect the Hard work item and second
and negatively the democracyitem. Also, determination, perseverance
and thrift, economizing and avoidingwaste notably add to this
factor.
Independence, imagination as well as tolerance and respect for
other people docontribute positively to our second factor which
explains 22.5 percent of the variance.Accordingly, we chose to
label this second factor self-expression values. The twofactors of
survival and self-expression values are valid to uncover over 53
percentof the cross-country values variation in the EU. Following
Ingleharts value structure(1997), countries are expected to reflect
survival values as opposed to self-expressionvalues. However, in
our analyses of the European countries which we will discusslater
they form two independent dimensions instead of a continuum. Also,
referringto our findings (see Figure 3), we observe that:
(1) most of the countries that score high on survival values and
low on self-expression values are East European countries (e.g.
Slovakia, the CzechRepublic, Latvia, Romania, Hungary and
Bulgaria);
ComponentRotated component matrix 1 2 3
Hard work 0.893 0.049 0.056Democracy 0.789 0.123
0.029Determination, perseverance 0.774 0.043 0.530Thrift,
economizing and avoiding waste 0.719 0.196 0.465Independence 0.016
0.846 0.017Imagination 0.023 0.785 0.079Tolerance and respect for
other people 0.351 0.773 0.187Religion 0.109 0.101 0.901Obedience
0.302 0.181 0.808Variance extracted (%) 30.7 22.5 22.3
Notes: Extraction method: Principal component analysis; Rotation
method: Varimax with Kaisernormalization
Table V.Principal componentsanalysis of personal andsocial
values
278
IMR28,3
-
(2) Sweden scores particularly high on self-expression values
and low onsurvival values; and
(3) some countries score high on both sets of values (e.g. the
UK, Ireland andLuxembourg) while Germany scores relatively low in
both dimensions.
We call the third dimension traditional values since the
indicators of religion andobedience load 0.90 and 0.81,
respectively. It explains 22.3 percent of the remainingvariance.
This third factor captures part of the first dimension of the
cross-culturalvariation proposed by Inglehart and Baker (2000),
also called traditional valueswhich, according to these
researchers, reflects items such as god is very important
inrespondents life and obedience and religion faith are important
values in raisingchildren. We observe in Figure 4 that most
European countries score low ontraditional values. Several
exceptions need to be underlined: Malta and Cyprus scorevery high,
with Greece and Poland following in their wake.
4.3 The value orientation of the European macro- and
micro-clustersThe three macro-clusters of European countries,
classified according to theirattractiveness, can be profiled
according to their mean value orientation. On average,the less
attractive group is the only one that scores positive on the
survival andtraditional values while negative in self-expression
(see Figure 5), whereas the twomost attractive groups are oriented
toward self-expression values and get negativemean scores on
survival and traditional values.
Following our model, we perform the second stage of cluster
analysis in each of thetwo groups ranking higher in market
attractiveness in order to identify similar micro-
3.00000
2.00000
1.00000
0.00000
Self-
expr
essio
n va
lues
1.00000
2.000003.00000
Germany
Cyprus Lithuania
Czech Republic Latvia
Romania
BulgariaHungary
EstoniaGreece
SpainFinlandPoland
France
Austria
NetherlandsDenmark
Malta
Sweden
Ireland Luxembourg
Slovenia
United Kingdom
ItalyBelgium
Portugal
Slovakia
2.00000 1.00000Survival values
0.00000 1.00000 2.00000
Figure 3.Micro-segmentation:
countries factor scores forsurvival and self-expression
values
279
Internationalmarket selection
-
segments in terms of consumers values. To this end, we enter the
factor scores of thethree relevant dimensions of survival,
self-expression and traditional values inthe new cluster analyses.
Results from the most attractive group show, first, thatFrance,
Italy and Spain group together in a micro-cluster. Within the most
attractivemacro-cluster, these are the countries closest in terms
of the three dimensions ofpersonal and social values. Indeed, in
these countries, survival, self-expression andtraditional values
are relatively moderate (see Figure 6). Second, Germany and theUK
create individual micro-clusters and reflect low and high scores,
respectively, onthe three dimensions.
Within the second most attractive macro-cluster, three
micro-clusters emerged. Oneis composed by Sweden, which scores the
highest on self-expression values and verynegatively in the
survival and traditional (see Figure 7). In a second
micro-clusterare Luxembourg and Ireland. Although displaying
opposite signs in tradition (clusteranalysis does not search for
patterns but for n-dimensional distances), they are quiteclose in
all three dimensions and more particularly in O`self-expression.O
Finally,Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark
belong to a third micro-cluster. They are close, and get negative
scores, in traditional values with all of themexcept Belgium
scoring negative in survival values.
5. Discussion, implications, limitations and future research5.1
DiscussionThe core findings allow decision makers to identify the
most attractive markets andthe most suitable strategies in reaching
European consumers. In our illustration, we
3.00000
2.00000
1.00000
0.00000Tradi
tiona
l valu
es
1.00000
Denmark
Netherlands
Lithuania
AustriaFinlandCzech Republic
Estonia
PortugalLatvia
France
Italy
BelgiumRomania
United Kingdom
Greece
Cyprus
Malta
Hungary
Bulgaria
SloveniaLuxembourgSpain
SlovakiaIreland
Poland
Germany
Sweden
2.000003.00000 2.00000 1.00000 0.00000
Survival values1.00000 2.00000
Figure 4.Micro-segmentation:countries factor scores forsurvival
and traditionalvalues
280
IMR28,3
-
8.00000
6.00000
4.00000
2.00000
0.00000
2.00000
4.00000
6.00000
8.00000
Cluster 3 Cluster 2 Cluster 1
Clusters of EU countries by market attractiveness
Fact
or
sco
res
SurvivalSelf-expressionTraditional
Cluster 1: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK Cluster 2:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Sweden Cluster 3: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
Notes:Figure 5.
Value orientation of thethree macro-clusters of
European countries
2.00000
1.50000
1.00000
0.50000
0.00000
0.50000
1.00000
1.50000
2.00000
2.50000
France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom
Most attractive countries cluster
Fact
or s
core
s
SurvivalSelf-expressionTraditional
Figure 6.Value orientation of the
first cluster of mostattractive European
countries
281
Internationalmarket selection
-
have identified two groups of appealing countries. The most
attractive countries(i.e. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK)
should be prime targets for decisionmakers if we leave aside other
strategic aspects such as firm resources andcharacteristics,
particular industries, and the factors of the macro-environment
notconsidered by the model and use general segmentation bases. This
group of countriesglobally demonstrates higher mean scores of
self-expression values than those ofsurvival and traditional
values.
The micro-segmentation identified within the most attractive
macro-cluster three sub-clusters with closer and further value
orientations. This intra-cluster relativeproximity is what decision
makers have to consider in order to develop marketingstrategies and
communication campaigns based on the three sets of value
orientations.For instance, considering that advertising appeals are
likely to reflect cultural valuesand that matching cultural values
and advertising appeals enhance the persuasivenessof advertising
(Okazaki and Mueller, 2007), global advertising appeals (vs
localadvertising appeals) could be developed for consumers sharing
the same value system(vs different value system) (De Mooij, 2003).
In particular, decision makers suchas advertisers may consider
similar strategies in France, Italy and Spain (the
firstmicro-cluster) while Germany and the UK (the second and third
micro-clusters) needto be considered independently since they,
respectively, reflect low and high scoreson the three dimensions
and they are far from each other and from the Latinmicro-cluster.
To go further, positive references to values such as hard work
anddemocracy (associated to the survival dimension), imagination
and independence(relating to the self-expression dimension) or
religion and obedience (associated tothe traditional dimension) are
more likely to be accepted in communication campaignsby a British
audience than by a German one (see Figure 6 and Table V) given
theirhigher congruence with British values and, ultimately, the
cognitive processes ofselective attention, distortion and retention
influencing advertising effectiveness.
3.00000
2.50000
2.00000
1.50000
1.00000
0.50000
0.00000
0.50000
1.00000
1.50000
2.00000
2.50000
Austria Belgium Denmark Finland Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands
Sweden
Second most attractive countries cluster
Fact
or s
core
s
SurvivalSelf-expressionTraditional
Figure 7.Value orientation of thesecond cluster of
mostattractive Europeancountries
282
IMR28,3
-
Although there is scarce research that can be used to accurately
compare our findings,this result is consistent with the study by
Kamakura et al. (1994) who showed thatconsumers from Italy, the UK
and Germany belong to different value segments.
A second group of European countries can also be considered of
higher interestthan the third one because of their attractiveness
in terms of market development(i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, the Netherlands andSweden). Globally,
this group proves most oriented toward self-expression values
whileboth survival and traditional values also remain
distinguishing features of the groupdue to their negative scores.
These globally negative scores mean that, in general,in order to
design congruent messages to this group they have to
negativelyemphasize survival and traditional values (or positively
self-expression and modern ornon-traditional values). However, due
to the fact that these countries were primarilygrouped in terms of
market attractiveness, their proximities and patterns of
valueorientations is diverse (see Figure 7).
Again, the micro-segmentation identified within this second
macro-cluster threemicro-clusters having the potential to help in
the development of marketing strategiesand communication campaigns
based on the three sets of value orientations. Inparticular, Sweden
(a micro-cluster) needs to be reached through values such
asimagination, independence and tolerance due to their association
to the self-expression dimension, whereas values relating to the
survival and the traditionaldimensions will be less effective.
Luxembourg and Ireland (another micro-cluster) arealso proximate in
their value orientation and can be effectively reached with
acampaign emphasizing self-expression and survival values. Finally,
Austria, Belgium,Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands (the third
micro-cluster) highly vary in theirvalue orientation although it
would be possible to design a campaign centered inthe value
orientation of the centroid of the sub-group, i.e. the average
point in themultidimensional space defined by the three
dimensions.
Consequently, by considering both the economic and
socio-cultural differenceswithin Europe, we underline that despite
years of integration efforts, a standardizedapproach seems to some
extent ineffective for tackling the European market. Thiscorollary
is in line with previous studies on marketing strategies which
demonstratethat New Zealand, Japanese or US managers still perceive
differences among EUmarkets (Chung, 2005; Taylor and Okazaki,
2006).
Another interesting theme for discussion concerns the
differences between our valuesdimensions and those proposed by
Ingleharts theory, both in terms of (a) content (thedimensions
meaning) and (b) importance (variance explained). Regarding (a),
thetwo Ingleharts key dimensions of cross-cultural variation, i.e.
the traditional/secular-rational dimension (differences between
religious and traditional values andsecular and rational values)
and the survival/self-expression dimension (the shift fromeconomic
and physical security to self-expression and well-being values)
have alsobeen reflected in our study. From this perspective, our
research is, to some extent,supportive of Ingleharts framework in a
European context. However, our findings alsoshow that survival and
self-expression make up two distinctive uncorrelateddimensions
instead of one, which suggests that they may not form a continuum
ofvalues across the EU. In other words, individual European
countries can be reflectedin both sets of values but not
necessarily with opposite signs in their scores. However,once the
entire set of countries is clustered according to the economic
aspects (marketattractiveness), each of the three resulting
macro-groups completely opposite values intheir orientation toward
survival vs self-expression (see Figure 5), again support
283
Internationalmarket selection
-
Ingleharts two dimensions. Moreover although we would need a
longitudinalresearch design to properly prove it the modernization
theorists who argue thateconomic change brings cultural change
might come out reinforced given that threegroups of countries with
varying economic settings in terms of market size/potentialand
development also show different scores in their social and personal
valueorientations.
On the other hand, our findings also point to an association
between Inglehartstraditional/secular-rational dimension and our
traditional values dimension. Sincewe have found empirical evidence
for this traditional values dimension and,according to Ingleharts
framework, secular-rational values emphasize the opposite,we
suggest that this rationale might still be valid for EU countries
and that they likelystill form a continuum. This can also be
inferred from Figure 5 if we look, globally,at the positive scores
of the traditional values dimension regarding the lesseconomically
attractive cluster in comparison to the negative ones in the other
twoclusters.
When comparing (b), i.e. the importance of the dimensions,
beyond the fact that ourthree dimensions explain more
cross-cultural variance than in Ingleharts (76 percentvs 71
percent), we find some specific remarkable differences. First, our
traditionalvalues dimension accounts for 22 percent of the variance
and thus ranks thirdin importance. In contrast, for Inglehart, the
traditional/secular-rational valuesdimension remains the major
factor as it explains up to 46 percent of cross-culturalvariation
in the world (Inglehart, 2007). We suggest this difference could be
explainedif we consider that all EU members have currently already
shifted from an agrarianto an industrial society while this is not
the case in the world perspective consideredby Inglehart and Welzel
(2005). In fact, these researchers based their analyses on datafrom
a variety of countries, many of which are still in the first wave
of modernization.Second, the transition from industrial to
post-industrial or knowledge society (i.e. thechange from survival
to self-expression values) appears to explain over 53 percent ofEU
cross-cultural variation while the figure only comes to 25 percent
in Inglehartsfindings. Again, Europes specific characteristics in
terms of economic development, incomparison to the world sample
used by Inglehart, point to a similar justification forthis
shift.
In the context of a steady process of economic integration and
convergence inEurope, our results support the idea of a cultural
heterogeneity, which suggest that Aseconomic conditions converge
across countries, the manifestation of value differenceswill become
stronger (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2002, p. 61). Understanding the
valuesof consumers is therefore a key issue for managers and
researchers in internationalmarketing. Our research is a step in
that direction since it contributes to identifyingthe diverse
dominant values of European consumers. In this light we want to
remarkthat they can have a specific value orientation (e.g.
self-expression values for theSwedish), its opposite (e.g. survival
values for the Bulgarians) or a mix of both(e.g. the coexistence of
self-expression and survival values for the UK).
This study contributes to the literature by presenting an easy
to adapt originaltwo-stage IMS and segmentation model based on
established screening criteria andthe personal and social values
and dimensions derived from Ingleharts theory.This models strengths
are visible in terms of content (it includes the most
relevantdimensions of economic and cultural variation appropriate
for long-term decisions),data availability (regarding both the
number of countries and time proximity), easy useor interpretation
(only factor and cluster analyses are needed), parsimony (it
simplifies
284
IMR28,3
-
the screening and consumers segmentation process by focussing
exclusively on keyfactors), low cost (implementable from secondary
information sources) and objectivity(free of the subjectivity that
characterizes the approach usually followed by firms).In addition,
we fill an existing gap by providing a widely needed updated
andpan-European perspective on the enlarged EU market and by
exploring and applyingmeasures of specific European values.
5.2 ImplicationsOur research presents important implications for
institutions and public policymakers, managers and academia. First,
institutional decision makers can followthe prescribed model as a
market screening tool in order to prioritize Europeancountries in
terms of market attractiveness. As mentioned earlier, the use of
themacro-segmentation stage as a screening procedure is broadly
supported by the IMSliterature (e.g. Cavusgil et al., 2004).
Second, we present low cost and highly availableindicators of both
sets of measures hence the practical importance of our
specificmeasures for those needing to perform general analyses of
the EU markets. Third,public policy makers may also learn the
specific personal and social values to promotein order to build
more self-expressive and secular-rational and less survival
orientedsocieties in the long term. The importance of this issue
goes beyond European borderssince it is connected with one of
Ingleharts central findings when survival seems secure:increasing
emphasis on self-expression values makes the emergence of
democracyincreasingly likely where it does not yet exist, and makes
democracy increasinglyeffective where it already exists (Inglehart,
2007, p. 11). Indeed, self-expression valueshave been considered
civic in character in some recent studies (e.g. Welzel, 2010).
As for the managerial implications, considering that we applied
a generalsegmentation basis, market-seeking MNE managers can use
industry- and product-specific criteria to operationalize both
dimensions and readily identify the specificattractiveness of
European markets related to their businesses. In other words,
ourmodel illustrates the use and integration of general macro-and
micro-segmentationbases in an IMS context. Industry- and
product-specific applications are possible justby measuring the
same key constructs of market attractiveness for
particularindustries and products. In addition, considering the
expected impact of consumervalues on marketing programs (Vinson et
al., 1977), advertising agencies and businessto consumer firms
(whose products require frequent and intense
communicationstrategies) would benefit from categorizing countries
with similar personal and socialvalues. In the same vein, brand
positioning and advertising messages that match thespecific but
common values of European countries groups are obviously expected
toemerge. More in general, in relation to the mixed results that
research on internationalmarketing standardization has generated
from the EU perspective (see Chung, 2005),our findings support,
somehow, a more eclectic view. Although we agree that
thedifferences in consumers value orientation make it difficult to
employ a highlystandardized marketing program across the EU
countries, we suggest that managersfollow a more fine-grained
approach in which communication messages can at least
bestandardized within the micro-clusters that their specific
analysis may detect byapplying our model in their particular
sectors. Last, but not least, large market-seekingMNEs in consumer
markets, owning resources to penetrate most European
countries,should be aware of the potential benefits of using our
approach: first to prioritizegroups of markets and, second, to
adapt part of their marketing mix to their targetconsumers personal
and social values.
285
Internationalmarket selection
-
When it comes to the implications for researchers, we framed our
personal andsocial values in Ingleharts theory and thus we bridged
different research domainsand traditions by bringing solid
contributions developed in the sociological andpolitical sciences
to the international marketing and business fields. In order
toconceptualize and operationalize core values in their studies in
line with Yaprak(2008) we encourage scholars to not only use the
most typical frameworks ofcross-cultural variation, such as those
based, for instance, on Hofstede (1980),Schwartz (1994) or the
Globe study (House et al., 2004), but other established
referencesin the domains of social sciences as well.
5.3 Limitations and future research avenuesAmong the research
limitations, is the cross-sectional data we used to develop
ourmodel. Further research is needed to study the temporal
stability of the dimensionsfound and of the clusters observed. This
can be done by monitoring the Eurobarometerwaves and by testing the
model with new data on the enlarged EU as soon as newsurveys are
available. However, we expect the findings to be robust since
Inglehartsframework has been longitudinally replicated and
confirmed in different datasets.Second, we recognize the
traditional criticisms and limitations of IMS methods basedon
grouping models (Cavusgil and Nevin, 1981; Cavusgil et al., 2004)
related tothe aggregate nature of the data generally used, the lack
of temporal validity ofthe clusters due to the possible rapid
changes in markets, the lack of availablecomparable data and the
internal heterogeneity of the countries. However, throughoutthe
manuscript, our focus has been limited to the research gaps that we
identifiedin the introduction since no study can deal with all of
the potential limitationsand gaps in an area of research.
Therefore, addressing these limitations was out ofour scope and
future research will have the potential to contribute to
overcomingthem. Third, the applicability and validity of our model
in other world regions cannotyet be assumed. On the one hand, our
purpose was to develop a model useablefor decision makers such as
market-seeking MNEs willing to enter the EU market.On the other
hand, it has been built on information about a customized set
ofEuropean values. As a result, and despite the significant
similarities between ourdimensions and those found by established
theories, we remain skeptical aboutthe extent to which our model
can be applied or replicated in other areas of theworld. Fourth,
while the model seems particularly useful for decision makers
dealingwith general public policies and for market-seeking MNEs,
the combination of morethan one method of market selection has been
recommended for the final marketselection process (Cavusgil et al.,
2004). Future studies can combine the model andextend its stages
and applications in that direction. In this regard, a
particularlypromising possibility would be its combination with
models including othermicro-environmental actors such as, for
instance, type or level of competition.Finally, future research can
go forward as follows: first, in studying and applyingalternative
established frameworks of cross-cultural variation borrowed
fromother social sciences and second, with a specific comparison of
the proposeddimensions and those found in major studies in the
marketing and business fields.For instance, Inglehart (2007)
discusses the commonalities between his self-expressionvalues,
Hofstedes (1980) individualism and collectivism dimension and
Schwartzs(1994) autonomy/embeddedness concept. Discussions about
the differences betweenthe country scores we have used and those
reported in other studies would helpto this end.
286
IMR28,3
-
References
Askegaard, S. and Madsen, T.K. (1998), The local and the global:
exploring traits ofhomogeneity and heterogeneity in European food
cultures, International Business Review,Vol. 7 No. 6, pp.
549-68.
Ayal, I., Peer, A. and Zif, J. (1987), Selecting industries for
export growth a directional policymatrix approach, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 22-33.
Bennett, R. (1995), Market screening and segmentation, in
Bennet, R. (Ed.), InternationalMarketing: Strategy, Planning,
Market Entry & Implementation, Kogan Page, London,pp. 50-8.
Bijmolt, T., Leo, H.A., Paas, J. and Vermunt, J.K. (2004),
Country and consumer segmentation:multi-level latent class analysis
of financial product ownership, International Journal ofResearch in
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 323-40.
Boote, A.S. (1983), Psychographic segmentation in Europe,
Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 19-25.
Brewer, P. (2001), International market selection: developing a
model from Australian casestudies, International Business Review,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 155-74.
Brouthers, L.E., Mukhopadhyay, S., Wilkinson, T.J. and
Brouthers, K.D. (2009), Internationalmarket selection and
subsidiary performance: a neural network approach, Journal ofWorld
Business, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 262-73.
Burgess, S.M. (1992), Personal values and consumer research: an
historical perspective,in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Marketing,
Vol. 11, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 35-79.
Cavusgil, S.T. (1985), Guidelines for export market research,
Business Horizons, Vol. 28 No. 6,pp. 27-33.
Cavusgil, S.T. (1990), A market-oriented clustering of
countries, in Thorelli, H.B. and Becker, H.(Eds), International
Marketing Strategy, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, pp. 201-11.
Cavusgil, S.T. and Nevin, J.R. (1981), State of the art in
international marketing: an assessment,in Enis, B.M. and Roering,
K.J. (Eds), Review of Marketing, American MarketingAssociation,
Chicago, IL, pp. 195-216.
Cavusgil, S.T., Kiyak, T. and Yeniyurt, S. (2004), Complementary
approaches to preliminaryforeign market opportunity assessment:
county clustering and country ranking,Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 607-17.
Chung, H.F.L. (2005), An investigation of crossmarket
standardisation strategies:experiences in the European Union,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12,pp. 1345-73.
Day, E., Fox, R.J. and Huszagh, S.M. (1988), Segmenting the
global market for industrial goods:issues and implications,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 14-27.
De Mooij, M. (2003), Convergence and divergence in consumer
behavior: implications for globaladvertising, International Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 183-202.
De Mooij, M. and Hofstede, G. (2002), Convergence and divergence
in consumer behavior:implications for international retailing,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-9.
DiRienzo, C.E., Kathryn, J.D., Cort, T. and Burbridge, J.
(2007), Corruption and the role ofinformation, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 320-32.
Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (1982), Information for
international marketing decisions, inWalter, I. and Murray, T.
(Eds), Handbook of International Business, Wiley, New York, NY,pp.
3-33.
Dow, D. and Karunaratna, A. (2006), Developing a
multidimensional instrument to measurepsychic distance stimuli,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp.
578-602.
287
Internationalmarket selection
-
Dunning, J.H. (1998), Location and the multinational enterprise:
a neglected factor?, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol.
29 No. 1, pp. 45-66.
Esmer, Y. and Pettersson, T. (2007), Measuring and Mapping
Cultures: 25 Years of ComparativeValue Surveys, International
Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Brill, Leidenand
Boston.
Gielens, K. and Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2004), What drives new
product success? An investigationacross products and countries,
Marketing Science Institute Report No 04-108, pp. 25-50..
Green, R.T. and Allaway, A.W. (1985), Identification of export
opportunity: shift-shareapproach, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No.
1, pp. 83-8.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultural Consequences: International
Differences in Work Related Values,Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta,
V. (2004), Culture, Leadership,and Organizations, The GLOBE Study
of 62 Societies, Sage Publications: ThousandOaks, CA.
Inglehart, R. (1977), The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and
Political Styles among WesternPublics, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Inglehart, R. (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial
Society, Princeton University Press,Princeton, NJ.
Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization:
Cultural, Economic and Politicalchange in 43 Societies, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Inglehart, R. (2007), Mapping Global Values, in Esmer, Y. and
Pettersson, T. (Eds), Measuringand Mapping Cultures 25 Years of
Comparative Value Surveys, Brill, Boston, MA,pp. 11-32.
Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000), Modernization, cultural
change and the persistence oftraditional values, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 19-51.
Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005),Modernization, Cultural
Change and Democracy. The HumanDevelopment Sequence, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), A
critical review of construct indicatorsand measurement model
misspecification in marketing and consumer research, Journal
ofConsumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-219.
Kale, S.H. (1995), Grouping euroconsumers: a culture-based
clustering approach, Journal ofInternational Marketing, Vol. 3 No.
3, pp. 35-48.
Kamakura, W.A. and Mazzon, J.A. (1991), Value segmentation: a
model for the measurement ofvalues and value systems, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 208-18.
Kamakura, W.A., Novak, T.P., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Verhallen,
T.M.M. (1994), IdentifyingPan-European value systems with a
Clusterwise Rank-Logit model, Rechercheet Applications en
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 29-55.
Kim, J.O., Forsythe, S., Gu, Q. and Moon, S.J. (2002),
Cross-cultural consumer values, needs andpurchase behavior, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 481-502.
Koch, A.J. (2001), Selecting overseas markets and entry modes;
two decision processes or one?,Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Kolman, L., Noorderhaven, N.G., Hofstede, G. and Dienes, E.
(2003), Cross-cultural differences inCentral Europe, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 76-88.
Lascu, D.N., Lalita, A.M. and Manrai, A.K. (1996), Value
differences between polish andRomanian consumers: a caution against
using regiocentric marketing orientation inEastern Europe, Journal
of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4, pp.
145-67.
Lemmens, A., Croux, C. and Dekimpe, M.G. (2007), Consumer
confidence in Europe: united indiversity?, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 113-27.
288
IMR28,3
-
Levitt, T. (1983), The globalization of markets, Harvard
Business Review, May/June, pp. 92-102.
Liander, B., Terpstra, V., Yoshino, M.Y. and Sherbini, A.A.
(1967), Comparative Analysis forInternational Marketing, Marketing
Science Institute, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Malhotra, S., Sivakumar, K. and Zhu, P.C. (2009), Distance
factors and target market selection:the moderating effect of market
potential, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 6,pp.
651-73.
Nowak, J. (1997), International market selection: developing a
region-specific procedure forCentral and Eastern Europe, Journal of
Transnational Management Development, Vol. 3No. 1, pp. 93-110.
Okazaki, S. and Mueller, B. (2007), Cross-cultural advertising
research: where we have been andwhere we need to go, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 499-518.
Paliwoda, S. and Marinova, S. (2007), The marketing challenges
within the enlarged singleEuropean market, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 3/4, pp. 233-44.
Papadopoulos, N. and Denis, J.E. (1988), Inventory, taxonomy and
assessment of methodsfor international market selection,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3,pp. 38-51.
Papadopoulos, N., Chen, H. and Thomas, D.R. (2002), Toward a
tradeoff model for internationalmarket selection, International
Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 165-92.
Rahman, S.H. (2003), Modelling of international market selection
process: a qualitative study ofsuccessful Australian international
businesses, Qualitative Market Research: AnInternational Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-32.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New
York, NY.
Rostow, W.W. (1990), The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge and
London.
Russow, L.C. and Okoroafo, S.C. (1996), On the way towards
developing a global screeningmodel, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 46-64.
Sakarya, S., Eckman, M. and Hyllegard, K.H. (2007), Market
selection for internationalexpansion: assessing opportunities in
emerging markets, International Marketing Review,Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.
208-38.
Samli, A.C. (1972), Market potentials can be determined at the
international level, AustralianJournal of Market Research, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 85-91.
Samli, A.C. (1977), An approach for estimating market potential
in East Europe, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 49-53.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), Beyond individualism/collectivism: new
cultural dimensions of values,in Uichol, K., Triandis, H.C.,
Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualismand
Collectivism: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 85-99.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1990), Toward a theory of the
universal content and structure ofvalues: extensions and
cross-cultural replications, Journal of Personality and
SocialPsychology, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 878-91.
Sousa, C.M.P., Ruzo, E. and Losada, F. (2010), The key role of
managers values in exporting:influence on customer responsiveness
and export performance, Journal of InternationalMarketing, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (2001), The role of national culture in
international marketing research,International Marketing Review,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Ter Hofstede, F. (2002), International
market segmentation: issuesand perspectives, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 185-213.
289
Internationalmarket selection
-
Taylor, C.R. and Okazaki, S. (2006), Who standardizes
advertising more frequently, and why dothey do so? A comparison of
US and Japanese subsidiaries advertising practices in theEuropean
Union, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp.
98-120.
Ter Hofstede, F., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1999),
International market segmentationbased on consumer-product
relations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 1,pp.
1-17.
Van Raaij, W.F.F. and Verhallen, T.M.M. (1994), Domain-specific
market segmentation,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 10,
pp. 49-66.
Vinson, D.E., Scot, J.E. and Lamont, L.M. (1977), The role of
personal values in marketing andconsumer behavior, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 44-50.
Welzel, C. (2010), How selfish are self-expression values? A
civicness test, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 41 No.
2, pp. 152-74.
Whitelock, J. and Jobber, D. (2004), An evaluation of external
factors in decision of UK industrialfirms to enter a new
non-domestic market: an exploratory study, European Journal
ofMarketing, Vol. 38 Nos 11/12, pp. 1437-55.
World Bank (2007), World development indicators 2007, available
at: www.worldbank.org(accessed June 18, 2008).
Yaprak, A. (2008), Culture study in international marketing: a
critical review and suggestionsfor future research, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 215-29.
About the authors
Charlotte Gaston-Breton, PhD in Marketing from the University
Paris Dauphine (France), is anAssociate Professor at the University
Paris Ouest Nanterre (France) as well as a VisitingProfessor at
University Carlos III of Madrid (Spain). Her research interests
concern several areasin consumer behaviour: the decision process of
the consumers (perception process and cognitivebias), the pricing
strategies and tactics (Euro impact and psychological pricing)
andmulticultural management (advertising strategies of foreign
firms and internationalnegotiations). Her publications are
available in several journals such as InternationalMarketing
Review, Journal of Product & Brand Management and Recherche et
Applications enMarketing, book chapters and conference
proceedings.
Oscar Martn Martn is an Assistant Professor at the Public
University of Navarre (Spain) andan Associated Researcher at
Uppsala University (Sweden). His research focuses on three
mainareas in international business: the internationalization
process of firms comprising expansionby Born Globals, psychic,
cultural and country distance, international market selection
andsegmentation and performance; country of origin awareness and
effects; and MNEs, includingthe development and transfer of
innovations and the role of headquarters. He has published
inrefereed journals such as International Business Review,
International Marketing Review, Journalof Management Studies and
Management International Review, book chapters and
conferenceproceedings. Oscar Martn Martn is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at:[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] visit our web site for further
details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
290
IMR28,3