How Global Brands Compete

How Global Brands Compete

When a brand is marketed around the world, thatfact alone gives itan aura of excellence-and a setof obligations.To maximize the value of globalreach, companies must manage both.

68 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

by Douglas B. Holt, John A. Quelch, and Earl LTaylor

I T'S TIME TO RETHINK GLOBAL BRANDING. More thantwo decades ago, Harvard Business School professorTheodore Levitt provocatively declared in a 1983 HBR

article, "The Globalization of Markets" that a globalmarket for uniform products and services had emerged.He argued that corporations should exploit the "econom-ics of simplicity" and grow by selling standardized prod-ucts all over the world. Although Levitt did not explicitlydiscuss branding, managers interpreted his ideas to meanthat transnational companies should standardize prod-ucts, packaging, and communication to achieve a least-common denominator positioning tbat would be effec-tive across cultures. From that commonsense standpoint,global branding was only about saving costs and ensuringconsistent customer communication. The idea provedpopular in the 1980s, wben several countries opened upto foreign competition and American and Japanese cor-porations tried to penetrate those markets with globalbrands and marketing programs.

While tbe world economy continued to integrate, ex-periments with global branding soon slowed. Consumers

in most countries bad trouble relating to the generic prod-ucts and communications tbat resulted from companies'least-common-denominator thinking. Executives there-fore rushed to fashion hybrid strategies. They strove forglobal scale on backstage activities such as technology,production, and organization but made sure product fea-tures, communications, distribution, and selling tech-niques were customized to local consumer tastes. Such"gloca!" strategies have ruled marketing ever since.

Global branding has lost more luster recently becausetransnational companies bave been under virtual siege.The evidence is on the streets and in stores all around us.Brands like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and Nike bave becomelightning rods for antiglobalization protests. Who canforget tbe images of angry demonstrators smashing thewindows of a McDonald's outlet in Davos, Switzerland, orstomping Coke cans in Seattle? Political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) bave drawn bull's-eyes on transnational companies because they're the mostvisible and vulnerable symbols of globalization's side ef-fects, such as exploitative wages, pollution, and cultural

SEPTEMBER 2004 69

How Global Brands Compete

imperialism. The opposition to U.S. for-eign policy that arose after the super-power went to war in Afghanistan andIraq has further shaken companies, be-cause in 2002, according to global brandconsultancy Interbrand, 62 of the world's100 most valuable global brands wereAmerican. Naturally, the instinctive re-action of most transnational companieshas been to try to fly below the radar.

But global brands can't escape notice - they've neverbeen more salient in the minds of consumers. In fact, mosttransnational corporations don't realize tbat people viewthem differently than tbey do other firms. Because oftbeir pervasiveness, global brands are seen as powerfulinstitutions - capable of doing great good and causingconsiderable harm. Wben we conducted a research proj-ect involving 3,300 consumers in 41 countries, we foundtbat most people choose one global brand over anotherbecause of differences in the brands' global qualities.Rather than ignore the global characteristics of theirbrands, firms must learn to manage those characteris-tics. That's critical, because future growtb for most com-panies will likely come from foreign markets. In 2002,developed countries in North America, Europe, and EastAsia accounted for 15% of the world's population of 6.3 bil-lion. By 2030, according to the World Bank, the planet'spopulation will rise to 9 billion, with 90% of people livingin developing countries.

Symbols in the Global CultureTo grasp how consumers perceive global brands, compa-nies should tbink about the issue in cultural terms. Theforces that Levitt described didn't produce a homoge-neous world market; tbey produced a global culture. Cul-ture is created and preserved mainly by communication.In modern societies, communication takes many forms:newspaper and magazine articles, television and radiobroadcasts, Internet content, books, films, music, art, and,of course, advertising and marketing communications.For decades, communication bad circulated mostly withinthe borders of countries, helping to build strong nationalcultures. Toward the end of the twentieth century, muchof popular culture became global. As nations integratedinto tbe world economy, cross-border tourism and labormobility rose; TV channels, movies, and music becameuniversally available to consumers; and, more recently,Internet growtb has exploded. Those factors force people

Like celebrities and politicians, globalbrands have become a lingua franca

to see themselves in relation to otber cultures as well astheir own. For instance, consumers everywhere have tomake sense of tbe world vis-a-vis Hollywood and Bolly-wood films, CNN and al-Jazeera news reports, hip-hopand Sufi music.

The rise of a global culture doesn't mean tbat consum-ers share the same tastes or values. Rather, people in dif-ferent nations, often with conflicting viewpoints, partic-ipate in a shared conversation, drawing upon sharedsymbols. One of the key symbols in tbat conversation isthe global brand. Like entertainment stars, sports celebri-ties, and politicians, global brands bave become a linguafranca for consumers all over the world. People may loveor hate transnational companies, but they can't ignorethem. Many consumers are awed by the political power ofcompanies that have sales greater than tbe GDPs of smallnations and that have a powerful impact on people's livesas well as the welfare of communities, nations, and theplanet itself Not surprisingly, consumers ascribe certaincharacteristics to global brands and use those attributesas criteria while making purchase decisions.

Dimensions of Global BrandsIn 2002, we carried out a two-stage research project inpartnership with the market research company ResearchinternationaVUSA to find out how consumers in differentcountries value global brands. First, we conducted a qual-itative study in 41 countries to identify the key character-istics that people associate with global brands. Then wesurveyed 1,800 people in 12 nations to measure the rela-tive importance of those dimensions when consumersbuy products. A detailed analysis (see the sidebar "TheGlobal Brands Study") revealed that consumers al! overthe world associate global brands with three characteris-tics and evaluate them on those dimensions while makingpurchase decisions. We found that one factor-Americanvalues-didn't matter much to consumers, although manycompanies bave assumed it is critical.

Douglas B. Holt ([email protected]) is the L'Or^al Professor of Marketing at the Said Business School of Oxford Univer-sity in England and the author of How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding (Harvard BusinessSchool Press, 2004). John A. Quelch ([email protected]) is the Lincoln Filene Professor at Harvard Business School in Boston.Earl L Taylor ([email protected]) is the chief marketing officer of the Marketing Science Institute in Cambridge, Massachu-setts, and was until recently a senior vice president of Cambridge based Research InternationalAJSA.

70HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How Global Brands Compete

Quality Signal. Consumers watch the fierce battles thattransnational companies wage over quality and are im-pressed by the victors. A focus-group participant in Rus-sia told us: "The more people who buy [a] brand...thebetter quality it is." A Spanish consumer agreed: "I like[global] brands because they usually offer more qualityand better guarantees than other products." That percep-tion often serves as a rationale for global brands to cbargepremiums. Global brands "are expensive, but the price isreasonable when you think of the quality," pointed out aThai participant. Consumers also believetbat transnational companies compete by •

trying to develop new products and break-tbrough technologies faster than rivals.Global brands "are very dynamic, alwaysupgrading themselves," said an Indian. AnAustralian added tbat global brands "aremore exciting because tbey come up witbnew products all the time, whereas youknow what you'll get with local ones."

That's a significant shift. Until recently,people's perceptions about quality for valueand technological prowess were tied to thenations from whicb products originated."Made in tbe USA" was once important; sowere Japanese quality and Italian design insome industries. Increasingly, however, acompany's global stature indicates whetherit excels on quality. We included measuresfor country-of-origin associations in ourstudy as a basis for comparison and foundthat, while they are still important, they areonly one-third as strong as the perceptionsdriven by a brand's"globalness"

Global Myth. Consumers look to globalbrands as symbols of cultural ideals. Theyuse brands to create an imagined globalidentity that tbey share witb like-mindedpeople. Transnational companies thereforecompete not only to offer tbe highest valueproducts but also to deliver cultural mythswith global appeal.

"Global brands make us feel like citizensof tbe world, and...they somebow give usan identity," an Argentinean consumer ob-served. A New Zealander echoed: "Globalbrands make you feel part of somethingbigger and give you a sense of belonging."A Costa Rican best expressed the aspira-tions that consumers associate with globalbrands: "Local brands show what we are;giobal brands show what we want to be."That isn't exactly new. In the post-WorldWar II era, companies like Disney, McDon-ald's, Levi Strauss, and Jack Daniel's spun

American myths for the rest of the world. But today'sglobal mytbs have less to do with the American way oflife. Further, no longer are myths created only by lifestyleand luxury brands; myths are now spun by virtually allglobal brands, in industries as diverse as informationtechnology and oil.

Social Responsibility. People recognize that globalcompanies wield extraordinary influence, both positiveand negative, on society's well-being. They expect firmsto address social problems linked to what tbey sell and

The Global Brands Study

To understand how consumers perceive global brands, we first drew on

qualitative research that Research International/USA conducted two years

ago. Rl held focus-group sessions with 1,500 urban consumers between 20

and 35 years old in 41 countries, and in some countries, the firm con-

ducted sessions with social activists. The research helped us identify four

dimensions that consumers may associate with global brands, namely

quality signal, global myth, social responsibility, and American values.

In February and March 2003, we conducted a quantitative survey to

calculate the extent to which the four dimensions influence consumers'

purchase preferences. We developed multiple measures for each of the

dimensions and pretested them in the United States and the UK. Rl

administered the survey in those countries and ten others (Brazil, China,

Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey).

We selected those 12 countries because they varied in terms of economic

development, region, religious heritage, and political history. In each

country, the participants were consumers between i8 and 75 years old,

chosen at random.

To test the influence of the global dimensions on purchase behavior, we

asked the respondents to choose among three competing global brands in

six product categories. We chose i6 from the top loo brands (97 were cor-

porate brands) in the 2002 Interbrand Global Brand Scorecard. We made

two exceptions. First, in the case of athletic wear, we chose Reebok, which

is the third-largest brand in mostapparei markets even though it is not

among the topioo brands. Second, in soft drinks, we found that the most

powerful third brand after Coke and Pepsi was typically a local brand, so

we included the most powerful local brand in each country survey. We

ended up with Nokia, Motorola, and Samsung in cell phones; Mercedes-

Benz, Ford, and Toyota In automobiles; BR Shell, and Exxon Mobil in

gasoline; Dannon, Nestle, and Kraft in the packaged goods category;

and Nike, Reebok, and Adidas in athletic wear.

We asked respondents to reveai brand preferences by asking them

to divide n points among the three brands in each category. We then

derived weights for each of the global dimensions by modeling the extent

to which each factor explained brand preferences. We also examined how

those importance weights varied by country, category, and segment. We

found that quality signal, global myth, and social responsibility are highly

significant, while American values is not. The three significant dimensions

explained more than 60% of the variance in brand preferences. We can

thereforesayconclusively that a brand's global dimensions have a signifi-

cant impact on its value in the consumer's eyes.

SEPTEMBER 2004

How Global Brands Compete

how they conduct business. In fact, consumers vote withtheir checkbooks if they feel that transnational compa-nies aren't acting as stewards of public health, workerrights, and the environment. As infamous cases have filledthe airwaves-Nestle's infant-formula sales in Africa sincethe 1980s, Union Carbide's Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, theExxon Valdez spil! in 1989, the outcry over Shell's plan tosink its Brent Spar oil rig and the protests at its Nigerianfacilities in 1995-people have become convinced thatglobal brands have a special duty to tackle social issues.A German told us: "I still haven't forgiven Shell for whatthey Idid] with that oil rig" An Australian argued: "Mc-Donald's pays back locally, but it is their duty. They aremaking so much money, they should be giving back."

The playing field isn't level; consumers don't demandthat local companies tackle global warming, but theyexpect multinational giants like BP and Shell to do so.Similarly, people may turn a blind eye when local com-panies take advantage of employees, but they won't standfor transnational players like Nike and Polo adoptingsimilar practices. Such expectations are as pronouncedin developing countries like China and India as they are indeveloped countries in Europe.

What we didn't find was anti-American sentiment thatcolored judgments about U.S.-based global brands. SinceAmerican companies dominate the international market,critics have charged that they run roughshod over indige-nous cultures in other countries. Champions of free tradehave countered that people in other nations want to par-take of the great American dream, and global brands likeCoke, McDonald's, and Nike provide access to it. That de-bate has cast a long shadow over American firms, and theyhave become rather circumspect about revealing tbeirorigins, culture, and values while doing business over-seas. Many have tried to position themselves as moreglobal than (ugly) American.

However, we found that it simply didn't matter to con-sumers whether the global brands they bought wereAmerican. To be sure, many people said they cared. AErench panelist called American brands "imperialisticthreats that undermine Erench culture." A German toldus that Americans "want to impose their way on every-body." But the rhetoric belied the reality. When we mea-sured the extent to which consumers' purchase decisionswere infiuenced by products' American roots, we discov-ered that the impact was negligible.

That finding is all the more remarkable consideringthat when we conducted our survey, anti-American senti-ment in many nations was rising because of the Iraq war.Most of the consumers were like the South African whocandidly said,"I hate the country, but I love their products."A Filipino confessed: "I used to go on anti-American ral-lies when I was a student, but I never thought about the[American] brand of clothes or shoes I wore!""We aren'tconcerned with how America governs itself," an Indian

said. "What we look for is quality in their products." Sincepeople's concerns with U.S. foreign policy have little im-pact on brand preferences, American companies shouldmanage brands just as rivals from other countries do.

The relative importance of the three dimensions wasconsistent across the 12 countries we studied, indicatingthat the calculus used by consumers to evaluate globalbrands varies little worldwide. Taken collectively, though,the global dimensions were more powerful in some coun-tries than in others (see the exhibit"Why Consumers PickGiobal Brands"). They have the smallest impact on U.S.consumers, for example. Because of the dominance of

Why Consumers PickGlobal Brands

The three dimensions of global brands-quality

signal, global myth, and social responsibility-

together explain roughly 64% of the variation

in brand preferences worldwide. The percentages

shown in the chart are the averages of survey

responses from 12 countries.

quality signal

global m/th

social responsibility Average percentageof brand preferencethat is explainedby each dimension

American brands in foreign markets, a competitive na-tional market, and a certain ethnocentrism, Americansare relatively uninterested in brands' global presence.The drivers also bave less impact on consumers in Braziland India. That may be because of vestiges of anticolonialcultures, the strength of local manufacturers, and growingnationalism in those countries. At the spectrum's otherend, the dimensions influence consumers in Indonesia,Turkey, and Egypt the most. In those predominantly Mus-lim nations, we could survey only people who worked inthe organized economy and belonged to the top 50% of thepopulation in socioeconomic terms. Such people mayvalue giobal brands particularly highly because they rep-resent a way of life that they cherish - a way of life thatmay be under threat from religious fundamentalism.

72HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How Globa l Brands C o m p e t e

Global Consumer SegmentsAlthough we didn't find much variation across countries,when we looked for differences within them, we foundthat in each country, consumers held a variety of viewsabout global brands. When we grouped together con-sumers who evaluate global brands in the same way, re-gardless of home country, we found four major segments.(See the exhibit "Dreamers, Doubters, and Other GlobalConsumers.")

Global Citizens. Fifty-five percent of respondents, onaverage, rely on the global success of a company as a sig-nal of quality and innovation. At the same time, they areconcerned whether companies behave responsibly on is-sues like consumer health, the environment, and workerrights. According to our study, the United States and theUK have relatively few global citizens, and Brazil, China,and Indonesia have relatively high numbers of them.

Global Dreamers. The second-largest segment, at 23%,consisted of consumers who are less discerning about,but more ardent in their admiration of, transnationalcompanies. Tbey see global brands as quality productsand readily buy into the myths they author. They aren'tnearly as concerned with those companies' social respon-sibilities as are the global citizens.

Antiglobals. Thirteen percent of consumers are skepti-cal that transnational companies deliver higher qualitygoods. They dislike brands that preach American valuesand don't trust global companies to behave responsibly.Their brand preferences indicate that they try to avoiddoing business with transnational firms. The antiglobals'numbers are relatively high in the UK and China and rel-atively low in Egypt and South Africa.

Global Agnostics. Such consumers don't base purchasedecisions on a brand's global attributes. Instead, they eval-uate a global product by the same criteria they use tojudge local brands and don't regard its global nature asmeriting special consideration. While global agnosticstypically number around 8% ofthe population, there's ahigher percentage of them in the United States and SouthAfrica and a relatively low percentage in japan, Indonesia,China, and Turkey.

New Opportunities, NewResponsibilitiesGlobal brands usually compete with other global brands.In most countries, Toyota battles Ford and Volkswagen.Nokia faces off against Motorola and Samsung. Sonytakes on Nintendo and Microsoft. To succeed, trans-national companies must manage brands with bothhands. They must strive for superiority on basics like thebrand's price, performance, features, and imagery; at thesame time, they must learn to manage brands' globalcharacteristics, wbich often separate winners from losers.

Think globalness. Smart companies manage theirbrands as global symbols because that's what consumersperceive them to be. However, people all over the worldare either astonished or disturbed by giant transnationalcorporations. Firms must leam to participate in that po-larized conversation about global brands and influenceit. A major obstacle is the instability of global culture.

Dreamers, Doubters, and OtherGlobal ConsumersMost consumers worldwide fall into one of four segments

in terms of how they relate to global brands. Global citizens

care about firms'behavior on the environment and other

issues; global dreamers readily accept brands' myths;

antiglobals try to avoid buying transnationals' products;

and global agnostics don't regard brands'global nature

as meriting special consideration. The relative sizes of

the segments are quite consistent worldwide.

Global Global Globalcitizens dreamers Antiglobals agnostics

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of respondents who fit into each consumer segment

SEPTEMBER 2004 73

How Global Brands Compete

Consumer understandings of global brands are framedby the mass media and the rhizome-like discussions thatspread over the Internet. Companies must monitor thoseperceptions constantly.

It's important for executives to break their habit of think-ing about global branding in least-common-denominatoror glocal terms because that ignores the transnationalcompany's most distinctive characteristic; its status as aglobal symbol. Branding must cater to people's percep-tions of transnationals as behemoths with extraordinarycapacities and power.

For example, in the late 1990s, Samsung launched aglobal advertising campaign that showed tbe South Ko-rean giant routinely pulling off great feats of engineer-ing, design, and aesthetics. Samsung convinced consum-ers that it competed mano a mano witb technologyleaders like Nokia and Sony across the world. As a result,Samsung was able to change the perception that it wasa down market brand, and it became known as a globalprovider of leading-edge technologies.

Manage the dark side. Just because companies areglobally successful doesn't mean that consumers haveonly positive perceptions about them. Transnational com-panies often have a "dark side" that they must manage. Inthe early 1990s, IBM discovered that while consumers be-lieved the company was quality focused, they also thoughtit was arrogant and bureaucratic. The firm addressed theproblem with its "Solutions for a Small Planet" advertis-ing campaign. The ads showed nonbusinesspeople in non-business settings: Frenchmen strolling along the Seine,Italian nuns gossiping on their way out of church. All weregushing about IBM's new technologies, as if those prod-ucts were fixtures in their lives. The scenes were jarring(what's IBM doing there?) and evocative. The campaignsmoothed over the feeling that IBM was arrogant and bu-reaucratic even as it asserted the company's ability to de-liver customer-driven solutions tbe world over. By the late1990S, it had helped shape the perception that IBM iskinder and gentler, although still a very Big Blue.

Build credible myths. Global success often allowscompanies to deliver value to consumers by authoringidentity-affirming myths. Firms must create appropriatemyths, though. For instance, the idea of a technologicalUtopia in which personal empowerment would reignsupreme took hold in the late 1990s. Major technologyfirms competed fiercely to own that ideal and becomethe company that people would join with to feel empow-ered. Microsoft was particularly effective with an adver-tising campaign built around the tagline "Where do youwant to go today?" The American version unfolded storiesabout common people, such as a sushi restaurant ownerand a rancher, using technology to unleash personal pas-sions. Tbe dialogue was philosophical, not technological:"Anybody who says that one person can't make a differ-ence is wrong. Try to push, don't give up, don't give up,don't give up. Where do you want to go today?" Microsoftwasn't selling just technology; it was selling the dream ofpersonal empowerment. The campaign worked becausethe world's dominant software company had earned thecredibility to author such a dream.

When companies author less-than-credible myths, itcan hurt brands. For instance, when concerns about globalwarming surged in the 1990s, consumers worried aboutwhether they'd be able to continue with their oil-fueledlifestyles. The dream of a sustainable world where fuelswouldn't pollute became particularly attractive. BP triedto tap into this dream. In the company's "Beyond Petro-leum" campaign, evocative stories and images invitedconsumers to share in an imagined have your-cake-and-eat-it-too future ofclean fuel. The idea was appealing, butBP, as a major petroleum producer but minor alternative-energy player, was not a credible author. The media andactivists roundly ridiculed the company for greenwash-ing itself. Eventually, BP had to rethink the campaign.

Treat antiglobals as customers. Most transnationalcompanies are unsure how to treat the people who dislikethem. As NGOs have become adept at staging media-friendly protests, corporations have been working hard

74HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How Global Brands Compete

One person in ten wouldn't buyglobal brands if given a choice.That'san extraordinary number. Companiesmust_earn thelmst of that segment

to get off the activists' hit lists. They assign the problem togovernment- or community-relations directors, who courtthe favor of NGOs in backroom dialogues. However, these"civil society" organizations are only the tip of tbe ice-berg. Naomi Klein's No Logo has been translated into 29languages. Adbusters magazine sells at Whole Foods Mar-ket's checkout counters. Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation,which put many multinational fast-food brands on trial,sat atop best-seller lists for many months.

Our study showed that one person in ten worldwidewouldn't buy global brands if given a choice. That's an ex-traordinary number. The antiglobals represent more po-tential sales than do markets the size of Germany or theUnited Kingdom, according to our calculations. Few busi-nesses are in a position to ignore such a large group of po-tential consumers. Companies must earn the trust of thatsegment by focusing on them as disgruntled consumers.Of course, that is unlikely to happen until firms are will-ing to make investments in the kinds of social activitiesthat will convince even the skeptics.

Turn social responsibility into entrepreneurship.While most companies have launched corporate socialresponsibility initiatives, the impact of such activities isquestionable. Most efforts appear to be a new form ofpublic relations. Even when companies are proactive, ini-tiatives are often limited to those tbat are "sustainable"-a euphemism used to describe moneymaking activitiesthat happen to benefit society. For instance, a companyscouting for supply chain efficiencies may reduce its needfor packaging materials, helping both the environmentand the company's bottom line. Another common ap-proach is to repackage philanthropic efforts using thenew language of social responsibility to target sociallyresponsible investors. The problem is that consumers, al-ready skeptical of transnationals' motives, regard thoseapproaches as opportunistic. The litmus test for social re-sponsibility initiatives is simple: Will consumers perceivethe actions to be motivated primarily by self-interest-orby an interest in the welfare of people and the planet?

Consider an initiative that Procter & Gamble recentlytested in Latin America's poorest communities. Over a bil-lion people in the world use unsafe water every day, lead-ing to more than 2 million deaths a year from diarrhea.P&G identified safe drinking water as a critical social

problem that fell within its scope ofexpertise. It leveraged its knowledgeof household sanitation to develop awater purification system that wouldbe effective in poor countries. P&Gfound that people would buy the prod-uct if it was easy to use and inexpensiveand if they could see that the purifiedwater was clean. Scaling down a tech-nology used in water purification facili-ties, the company's engineers developed

a satchel of particulate matter that consumers could stirinto buckets. Tbe particles would attract contaminantsand dirt, and people could filter out the pollutants witba cloth. P&G's tests in Guatemala have demonstrated tbattbe system can reduce the frequency of diarrhea episodesby around 25%. If the company markets the product glob-ally, the social impact could be extraordinary.

Wbat's impressive is that P&G deployed its vast tech-nological capabilities to tackle a problem that govern-ments and NGOs have struggled with for decades. To becredible, global companies' social responsibility effortsmust demonstrate that the firms have harnessed theirample resources to benefit society. Studies show tbat peo-ple trust powerful individuals who are seen to have sac-rificed their interests for the good ofthe whole. The samelogic applies to global companies. Some may argue thatcorporations have no business expending resources onactivities that lack a profit motive because a firm's onlypriority is to deliver returns to shareholders. That's short-sighted; if consumers believe that global companies mustsboulder greater social responsibility, executives reallydon't have much of a choice, do they?

• « •

A word of caution may be in order. Our view of globalbranding should not be interpreted as a call to rid trans-national brands of their national heritage, for two rea-sons. First, while globalness has become a stronger qual-ity signal tban nation of origin, consumers still preferbrands that hail from countries that are considered tohave particular expertise: Switzerland in chocolates, Italyin clothing, France in cosmetics, Germany in cars, Japan inelectronics, for example. More important, consumers ex-pect global brands to tell their myths from the particularplaces tbat are associated with the brand. For Nestle tospin a credible myth about food, the myth must be set inthe Swiss mountains, because that is where people imag-ine the brand hails from. Likewise, if L'Or^al is to authora myth about beauty, it must do so from a particularlyFrench viewpoint. Transnational companies would there-fore do well to manage their national identities as wellas their globalness. ^

Reprint R0409DTo order, see page 139-

2004 75