Standardization vs globalization: a new perspective of brand

strategies

Medina, Jose F

;

Duffy, Mike F

.

The Journal of Product and Brand Management

7.

3

(199

8): 223

-

243.

Active la función de subrayado de resultados en los navegadores por voz

Ocultar subrayado

Resumen (reseña)

Traducir Resumen

Traducir

This paper argues that meanings given to standardiz

ation and globalization might have created

some confusion and precipitated potentially misleading research results in the literature. The

paper discusses the basic assumptions underlying the marketing function as a necessary point of

departure to build a s

ounder theory around these concepts. Findings confirm the lack of formal

definitions of these concepts in the marketing and management literatures. The authors redefine

the concepts of globalization, standardization, adaptation and customization with the h

elp of the

AMA

's and Webster's dictionaries. The new conceptualization is applied to a brand strategy

framework. Preliminary results show that standardization and globalization may be at opposite

ends of an evolutionary brand strategy process, whereas adaptation and cus

tomization are

intermediary stages. The paper discusses the findings and suggests future research possibilities.

Texto completo



Traducir Texto completo

Traducir



Activar la navegación de términos de búsqueda

Activa

r la navegación de términos de

búsqueda

Jose

F.

Medina

: Assistant Professor of International Marketing,Division of Management of

Marketing, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas,USA

Mike F. Duffy: Associate Professor of Marketing,Department

of Marketing, Minot State

University, Minot, North Dakota, USA

Introduction

The debate on "standardization" and"globalization" of international markets continues unabated.

Yet, a review of theliterature on the subject raises the question of what exactly these terms mean.

Even the AmericanMarketing Association's Dictionary of Marke

ting Terms (Bennett, 1988)

doesnot define the word globalization. Furthermore, the meanings of "adaptation"

and"customization" also come into question as they tend to mean the opposite ofstandardization

and globalization. Fashionable terms such as "global

standardization"do nothing but confuse

readers of the marketing literature; and nobody seems to know whatphrases such as "think global

act local" really mean.

One major problem appearsto be that empirical studies do not provide a sufficient theoretical

ba

sis to understand thesimilarities and differences reported. It is not clear that these authors

provide a definition orsome degree of measurability of what they intend to promote. This may

have led researchers astray,rendering subsequent findings potentiall

y misleading. Without

properly defining terms likestandardization and globalization, it is going to be difficult to build a

theory of theworld's consumer market.

This paper attempts to study the definitions ofstandardization, globalization, adaptation, an

d

customization as presented in the literature;and strives for a preliminary, operational definition of

these terms. First, we discuss theimportance of defining marketing terminology based on general

assumptions of what marketing meansto most academicians

and practitioners. Next, we include a

review of the literature on thedefinitions of standardization, globalization, adaptation, and

customization, and provide our owndefinitions based on this analysis. We continue with our own

conceptual framework of brand

attribute strategies. This section analyzes the evolutionary

process brands go through as they movefrom standardization to globalization. Then, we follow

with a summary and discussion of the newdefinitions with emphasis on standardization and

globalization

. Finally, ideas for future researchare explored.

The assumptions

Social science philosophers havepointed out that if a theory is to be properly tested, the

researcher's implicit assumptionswhich form the boundaries of the theory must first be

understood

(Weber, 1947). Thisnotion of boundaries based on implicit assumptions is critical

because it sets the limitations inapplying the theory (Bacharach, 1989). To develop a theory of

the globalization ofproducts from a marketing perspective, we must start by d

elineating the

boundaries of thetheoretical framework within which most marketers operate.

The basic assumptions made by themarketing function are presented in Figure 1. These

assumptionsare necessary to understand the fundamental marketing realities of a

market

-

driven

economy.They will enable us to examine the key influences on product strategy from the same

theoreticalstandpoint; and they will allow for a critical evaluation of the theory as it is

beingconstructed. When the "marketing community" consider

s the established

marketingassumptions no longer adequate to explain contemporary marketplace realities, the

resulting theorywill be modified as well.

The first assumption about the role of marketing goes to the heartof what makes it such a

dynamic discip

line

-

the exchange process. It is a widely understoodand accepted tenet in

economics and international trade that voluntary commercial exchanges betweenparties (i.e.,

producers and consumers) promote economic growth (Barth, 1997;Gwartney and Stroup, 1993)

.

The marketing function centers around the idea of creatingexchanges, whether that's

accomplished through the advertising of a product or throughdeveloping a more efficient

distribution channel (Houston, 1986). The motivation forcommercial exchanges rests

on the

principle of mutual benefits resulting from parties acquiringdifferential advantages through

competition for resources and specialization (Ricardo,1953).

Exchanges will not occur unless parties believe they possess something of valueto trade.

(Pro

ducers possess goods and services and consumers possess their income andsavings.) It is the

responsibility of the marketer to help the production function conceive aproduct consumers are

willing to trade their money for. Marketers interact as"mediators" be

tween production and

consumption, and the consumer will demand from thefirm a product that is worth their money.

Marketers also have the responsibility to learn(e.g., through marketing research) what specific

goals and benefits consumers seek. Thiswill fac

ilitate the creation of a product which will help

producers and consumers consummate atransaction.

To increase the chances that consumers are going to value a product, consumersmust be

specified

-

identified and selected (Fennell and Saegert, 1990). This

isthe second marketing

assumption important to understand the responsibilities of marketers. Thespecification of a group

of consumers begins after marketers have defined the firm's area ofexpertise (i.e., activity

-

domain). Defining the firm's area of exper

tiseinvolve identification of the product category in

which the firm chooses to compete and thecorresponding competitors. A group of consumers

known as the target market is then identified andselected based on this area of expertise. Next,

demand

-

creating

conditions affectingprospective customers are explored within the focal activity

-

one that corresponds to theproduct category

-

such as buying a brand of toothpaste (Fennell and

Saegert,1990). Ultimately, the responsibility of the marketer is to discover

customer

-

perceivedbenefits such that they are matched to specific product

-

category attributes. For

example, anunderlying product benefit such as "cavity protection" should correspond to a

specificproduct attribute such as "fluoride content".

The third ass

umption aboutmarketing is that the product is a bundle of both tangible and

intangible attributes designed tosatisfy the consumer (Kotler and Armstrong, 1993). Because the

product possesses inherentattributes that the consumer values, the product program o

f the

marketing mix is foundational instrategy development. In other words, there must first exist a

clear definition of theproduct/market relationship before any other element of the mix can be

seriously considered(Fennel and Seagert, 1990; Kotler, 1989).

There are at least two reasons why

theproduct program is critical from the corporate strategy standpoint. First, the marketer must

decidewhether the benefits sought by the targeted consumer are already offered by the

firm'sproduct line. If not, the firm m

ay need to modify its product line by creating a new brand,

or aninnovation. Secondly, the marketer should always be concerned with the transferability of

a"tested" product program to other potential markets.