Discuss
the problem and solutions of global branding, explore some real life examples
and critique their success and failure at going "global".
“A wide geographic footprint does not
qualify you as a global brand. You also need all the other aspects that make a
brand a brand”
- Simon Rothon, senior vice president of Unilever Marketing Services
In the modern days
the trend for brand-globalisation is incrementally growing. The ground behind
that process lies in the new opportunities that may be discovered when entering
foreign markets, especially those in developing countries (Hollis, 2010).
The success of the
companies that has achieved the status of a Global Brand is incredibly
attractive. Such companies as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Nestle were able to
establish their brand internationally and thus attain incredibly valuable
positions and brand value. The benefits of expanding the brand presence to new
markets employ gaining from economies of scale and also reducing risks and
expenses of launching an entirely new brand (Hollis, 2010). However, “going global” is not as easy
as it seems.
The majority of
these prosperous companies where initially exceptionally powerful in their
countries of origin and only after went abroad using trials and errors approach
(Hollis, 2010). However, in today’s competitive environment such strategy would
not work anymore as many gaps in demands are already fulfilled, and besides,
there is constant time pressure, regulatory changes as well as continuous tension
due to extremely aggressive competition.
Another barrier
when going global is exceedingly contrasting cultures, languages, religions, traditions,
as well as economical and political situations amongst countries (Gregory and
Wiechmann, 2002). These difficulties imply attempting to find a perfect balance
between the consistency that is vital to maintain brand image and the necessary
adaptability to the local settings.
In order to combat
all the difficulties mentioned above, Hollis (2010) suggests the framework of
The Brand Pyramid (based on Millward Brown’s BrandDynamics brand equity
framework):
Source:
Hollis Nigel, (2010), The Global Brand, p.36
The presented
model explains the progression of a customer relation with a brand, by starting
at the basis of the pyramid. The bonding level implies that a customer
perceives the brand’s adding values as unique.
One more route for
success proposed by Hollis (2010), is to maximise a brand’s growth potential
using the following factors:
· Creating
a stronger presence compared to competition
· Creating
the perception that the brand is the one able to satisfy their needs
· Securing
the loyalty of the more valuable customers in the category
Looking into
practical case studies, the success of Evian water cannot be ignored. It is a
definite global brand leader nowadays, coming from being drunk solely for
medicinal purposes in the 19th century (Haig, 2011). Even though
Evian has a very strong competition considering its substitute is tap water,
accessible and free of charge. It is also priced relatively high, comparing
even to Coca-Cola and other soft drinks. Nevertheless, it conquered the global
market and still remains at the top brands ranking. According to Haig (2011),
the critical success factors for Evian are Pure and Healthy brand image clearly
communicated. Another factor is a strong association with Alps in the mind of
consumers mostly as a result of consistency of mountains depiction on the label
since 1995. Evian has never produced any flavoured drinks, which proves the
quality and trustworthiness of the brand.
Speaking regarding
negative examples, several fiasco cases can be illustrated. Scandinavian vacuum
manufacturer Electrolux gained negative reputation in America by presenting
their new slogan “Nothing sucks like an Electrolux”, which was considered
inappropriate and rude. One of the most often misinterpretations is referred to
translation negligence. For instance Pepsi’s campaign in Taiwan “Come alive
with Pepsi generation” was translated as “Pepsi will bring your ancestors back
from dead”. American Airlines launched a campaign for their new luxury business
class segment in Mexico stating “fly in leather”, which in Spanish read “Vuelo
en cuero”. However the Spanish dictionary neglected that “en cuero” is a slang
term for “in the nude” and thus was not very successful. Not only language
issues are arising when companies are expanding internationally. For example,
when Lufthansa decided to form a joint venture with Indian Modi Group and
launched ModiLuft, the enterprise did not work out. After that Lufthansa was
suing Modi for applying funds acquired from German company to other ventures.
Modi in return, accused the opponents in supplying defective planes (Haig,
2011).
Taking a look into
examples provided above it became clear that the success in global environment
requires a lot of effort. Even good products can fail as a result of a
negligent branding strategies or mistakes. That is why the importance of
branding in going global process must be fully appreciated.
References:
Hollis, N (2010) The Global Brand: How to create
and develop lasting brand value in the world market. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Gregory, J and Wiechmann, J (2002) Branding Across
Boarders: A guide to global brand marketing. Pp.28-47. New York: McGraw Hill
Dyson, P. Farr, A. and Hollins, N. (1996)
“Measuring and using brand equity”, Journal
of Advertising Research, vol36, Nr 6, Nov/Dec, pp9-21.
Haig, M. (2011) Brand Success: How the World’s Top
100 Brands Thrive and Survive. 2nd Ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Haig, M. (2003) Brand Failures: The truth about the
100 biggest branding mistakes of all times. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
