Universal appeals with local specifications

Universal appeals with local specifications Ming-Huei Hsieh Department of International Business, Yuan Ze University, Chung-Li, Taoyuan, Taiwan, and

Andrew Lindridge Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK Abstract Purpose – Aims to explore the factorial structure of automobile brand image in the context of a cross-national study. More specifically, we intend to answer two questions: whether the factor structure of brand image perception differ across countries, and whether these differences are owing to nation’s culture and level of economic development. Design/methodology/approach – An existing data set, which consists of data collected from survey research, was employed. Data covering the top 20 automobile markets consisting of 4,320 eligible new car owners. Perception of and attitude towards automobile brand associations were measured using nominal scales. Findings – Provides empirical evidence that supports the applicability of multiple brand image dimensions corresponding to the consumer’s sensory, utilitarian, symbolic and economic needs at the global level. The study also suggested that factor structure of brand image differs across nations and these differences might be reflective to a nation’s culture and its level of economic development. Research limitations/implications – As with any empirical study, this research inevitably has its limitations, which presents opportunities for further research: extensions of the present framework to other product categories; extensions of the national factors; extensions of the brand associations; and measurement improvement. Practical implications – Understanding the similarities or differences of the factor structure of brand image across the globe facilitates the formation of a successful global image strategy. First of all, by exploring brand image structure at the global level; and the specific interrelationships among the corresponding associations Originality/value – The results derived from the 20 diverse nations in the present study not only enhance our understanding of brand image structure but also provide a strong test of the empirical generalizability of automobile brand image dimensionality and factor structure in a global context. Keywords Brand image, Automotive industry Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Following this thought, proponents argue in favor of a customization strategy in order to cater to the specific characteristics of each market. Alternatively, others argue that the representation of the brand image, i.e. the number and the definition of the basic image dimension, remain largely similar across countries owing to culturally related individual values (Schwartz, 1994) and needs (Park et al., 1986). Furthermore, as consumers are becoming more similar psychologically amid the process of globalization (Hermans and Kempen, 1998) evidence also suggests that in some product categories there is a widespread acceptance of foreign products across the world in arising from the assumption that these products respond to the universal needs and wants of consumers (Levitt, 1983). Some scholars have expressed skepticism about the value of a standardization strategy because important national differences are often overlooked (Whitelock and Chung, 1989). At the same time, a customization strategy might neglect the homogeneity between nations and could result in diseconomies of scale. The balance between standardization and customization of international brand image strategy may lie in the extent to which the existing brand image that people perceive and focus is similarly or differently perceived across the globe.

Journal of Product & Brand Management 14/1 (2005) 14– 28 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] [DOI 10.1108/10610420510583716]

The authors acknowledge the contribution of MORPACE International Inc. in providing the dataset for analysis. This study was partially funded by the National Science Council under the research project of NSC 922416-H-155-035

An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction With the accelerated movement of globalization (e.g. Levitt, 1983; Szymanski et al., 1993), the emergence of brands across nations revitalizes the age-old issue of which brand image strategies, standardization versus customization, should be used in which market. Previously Belk and Pollay (1985) suggested that cultural variations may influence how consumers organize the brand image in their mind in two interrelated ways: 1 the content of communication messages delivered by the markets: and 2 the kind of associations consumers focus on when perceiving a brand. The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

14

Universal appeals with local specifications

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Aaker and Benet-Martinez (2001) examined the similarities/differences of the number and nature of brand personality dimensions between two culturally distinctive countries (i.e. Spain and Japan) and identified both common and cultural-specific brand personality dimensions. According to Keller (1993) brand image construct is composed of three types of brand associations: 1 attribute; 2 benefit; and 3 brand attitude.

research. More recently, following the principles of the cognitive and psychological approach (Haugtvedt et al., 1991) brand equity researchers (Keller, 1993; Farquhar and Herr, 1991) have explicitly defined brand image as a set of perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in the consumers’ memory. Two structural properties of brand association, namely abstraction and complexity, are elaborated below to support the proposed benefit-based multi-dimensional brand image construct. Farquhar and Herr (1991) and Keller (1993) distinguished different types of brand associations including attribute, benefit and/or brand attitude on the basis of their level of abstraction. Implications of level of abstraction include the amount of information and its self-relevance to the consumer (Wu et al., 1988). Brand associations at a higher level of abstraction, such as benefit and brand attitude, possess summarizing information and have a closer relationship with the consumer self than do product attributes. For example, in the automobile industry the benefit association of good acceleration summarizes the product attribute information such as number of seconds required to accelerate from low speed to fourth gear, engine size, and/or whether variable ratio power steering is offered. The relationship between good acceleration and consumer self is stronger than that between engine size and consumer self because good acceleration, which is kind of “perceived” information, provides readily made evaluations in forming a preference. The important role of self-relevance in conceptualizing brand image structure is also supported by the notion that brand image is a largely subjective and perceptual phenomenon (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990). As such, although it is suggested that brand image should encompass all the associations at different levels of abstraction (for example Keller, 1993; Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1991), it is plausible to incorporate only benefit associations into brand image construct in the case where a parsimonious model is required. As far as the dimensionality is concerned, the multi-dimensional representation of brand image structure could be supported by the structure property of complexity. Complexity of beliefs associated with an attitude object is typically defined “as the dimensionality of the beliefs that a person holds about an attitude object, i.e. the number of dimensions needed to describe the space utilized by the attribute ascribed to the attitude object” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, p. 103). After being exposed to the communication message, in accordance with the attribute ascribed to a product for a period of time, consumers will then develop a multitude of associations reflecting their multiple interests, needs and wants. Therefore, any construct that is conceptualized within a single dimension is unlikely to capture the representation of image perception of a wellknown brand. Park et al. (1986) in response, proposed three distinctive brand benefit concepts: functional/utilitarian, symbolic and experiential. These are defined as brandunique abstract meanings that typically originate from a particular configuration of product features and a firm’s efforts to create meaning from these arrangements. Alternatively, Claeys et al. (1995) distinguish between consumer’s cognitive structure for “think” and “feel” products. “Think” products are bought mainly for utilitarian cognitive reasons (Rossiter and Percy, 1991), while the purchase of “feel” products is driven by the need for more emotional wants and affective motives (Holbrook and

Unlike Aaker and Benet-Martinez’s (2001) study where nonproduct attribute-based brand associations were investigated, our study focuses instead on benefit-based brand associations. The aim of this article then is to examine the extent to which consumers across countries share a similar perceptual representation of the benefit-based multi-dimensional brand image in a wider variety of markets. The issue of brand globalization is particularly important in the context of the automotive industry. As competition continues to grow in domestic markets, an increasing number of companies, such as Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors, Ford and Volkswagon are attempting to offset low market growth in domestic markets by entering the new emerging car markets, such as China. With the adoption of brand management (Lienert, 1998) auto-manufacturers are competing fiercely in meeting consumer needs by reconfirming the links between associations and brands in consumers’ minds. Images of brands can become well formed in customers’ minds through high marketing expenditures and high market penetration of the product (Kirmani and Zeithaml, 1991). Thus, it is expected that the issue of brand image management will continue to play a critical role in the automobile industry. The next two sections provide background on the conceptualization of benefit-based multi-dimensional brand image and the national cultural and economic factors that might influence the factor structure of brand image. Then the characteristics of data set employed are described. Results are reported at global and nation level and their implications are discussed. Finally, limitations and extensions for future research are suggested.

Literature review The supporting literature consists of three inter-related sections that illustrate the relationships between brand image and countries national characteristics. First, how brand images are derived from brand associations and subsequently how these are structured are illustrated. Then brand image structure and its inter-relationship with countries national factors conclude the literature review. The conceptualization of brand image perception Brand image research has long been recognized as one of the central areas of the marketing research field not only because it serves as a foundation for tactical marketing mix issues but also because it plays an integral role in building long-term brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Park and Srinivasan, 1994). Rooted in psychology, brand image can be considered as a new variety of “old” psychological variables attempting to explain consumer behaviors. Since the early 1960s, divergent concepts were proposed in which attitude-based image research has come to dominate the field of brand image 15




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Schindler, 1994). Certain benefits may be considered “prototypical” and essential for a specific product category (Loken and Ward, 1990). For instance, copying machine, which is generally considered as a “think” product, are bought mainly for utilitarian reasons while perfume, which could be considered as a “feel” product, are more often driven by symbolic motives. However, very often there is no clear-cut distinction between “think” and “feel” products. For instance, when purchasing a vehicle, consumers would focus not only on the safety benefits, but also on performance, sensory satisfaction and/or psychological fulfillment. The above discussions rationalize our attempt to develop a benefit-based multi-dimensional brand image construct (del Rio et al., 2001; Low and Lamb, 2000). In that, each brand image dimension corresponding to consumers’ various needs is represented as a member of the higher order category, wherein the benefit-based brand associations are the building blocks of this higher order category representation. Therefore we propose a first research proposition:

perceive a brand image (Belk and Pollay, 1985). As is shown in Figure 2, although there are considerable overlaps in certain brand association between countries A and B, only partial equivalents exist. In line with Figure 2, our study focuses on the rather fundamental between-country differences with an attempt to answer the question as whether national characteristic differences reflect differences in the way that brand knowledge is organized in memory. The representation of the factor structure of brand image in terms of the correspondences and the sequence of the factors extracted is not absolute equivalence. For instance, the first factor in country A conveys associations 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, only associations 1, 3, and 4 are related as the second factor in country B. Also, the associations constructed in the third factor in country B are similar to the combination of the associations contained in the third and forth factors in country A. Image factor (i.e. dimension) could be determined by several types of interrelationships among brand associations that are similar to the interdependences among product attributes (Yi, 1989). Figure 3 illustrates interrelationships comprising of a set of associations that measures the same concept or leads to a brand perception. For example, brand associations such as “exciting”, “fun to drive” and “good acceleration” could be interrelated in representing the same image dimension because they are likely to lead to a congruent “sensory” perception. The second type of interrelationship contains causally related brand associations. For instance, if consumers believe that a prestigious car will consume more gasoline, then “prestige” and “fuel economy” will be negatively related in forming an image dimension. Similarly, the “technology level of a car” will be negatively related to “good value for money” if consumers reckon that the investment of latest technology increases the cost. Finally, another type of interrelationship results from attributing to a common antecedent. For instance, consumers’ perceptions of “prestige” and “latest technology” could be interrelated because of their relationships with a common antecedent, i.e. the styling of a car. The representation of the factor structure of brand image is mainly affected by the advertising message delivered and the meaning interpreted by consumers, which have often been assumed to reflect variations among cultures (Tse et al., 1989) and industrial environments (Nevett, 1992). To the degree that brand image varies in response to the needs and values

P1.

The construct of brand image, which is composed of brand associations, should reflect multiple dimensionalities corresponding to consumers’ functional, symbolic and sensory needs.

National characteristics affecting brand image National cultural differences could contribute to two types of between-country differences in brand image: 1 the impact of the brand image on subsequent consumer behavior; and 2 the definition of the image dimension, i.e. the brand associations that load on each image dimensions. Figures 1 and 2 highlight these two perspectives respectively. Using image as the first-order independent variable, existing cross-national consumer research (e.g. Kale, 1995; Roth, 1995) often centers on the first between-country difference to assess the affect of brand image appeal on consumer response, i.e. g in Figure 1. It is noted that when brand image dimension is a latent construct containing multiple indicators, measurement equivalence of the image dimension becomes the prerequisite to examine national differences. However, very often that brand image is only partially equivalently defined across countries because national and cultural variations may influence how consumers organize and

Figure 1 Between country differences I – effects of brand image on the subsequent consumer behaviour

16




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Figure 2 Between country differences II – factoral structure of image dimension

Figure 3 Types of interrelationships among brand associations

held by the consumer within a culture, we should be able to observe evidence of national-specific meaning (i.e. number and nature of the image dimension) that relates to these particular needs and values. Two important national influences on the brand image are national cultural- and economic factors. These will now be discussed. A country’s cultural factors have frequently been related to consumption, owing to cultural differences between countries being more resilient and enduring compared with other environmental characteristics (Malhotra et al., 1998). Many studies have addressed the important aspect of culture in relation to consumer behavior (e.g. Lynn et al., 1993; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Madden et al., 2000). However, little empirical evidence exists to show how these differences in cultures affect consumer’s brand image perception. One manifestation of culture is through symbolic systems, where shared meanings and symbols become publicly verifiable as belonging to a specific culture (Rohner, 1984). Products and their related brand structures therefore become important to individuals due to their ability to carry and communicate cultural meaning (Belk, 1984; McEnally and de Chernatony, 1999). Relying on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, we now illustrate how cultural factors might affect the sequence of the factors/dimensions extracted by a specific national sample. Hofstede’s (1983, 1991) influential work on cross-cultural value systems identifies three aspects of culture that could be related to consumer needs and brand image: power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism. It is suggested that the kind of image

dimension the consumer focuses on when perceiving a brand is reflective of cultural differences in value emphasis (Roth, 1995; Kale, 1995). First, high power distance relates to a higher tendency toward privileged position, suggesting that buyers are more likely to focus on symbolic appeals. Second, high degree of uncertainty avoidance dimension relates to a higher reluctance in accepting new products and risk, suggesting that marketers should reduce buyers’ perceived risk by highlighting utilitarian satisfaction. Finally, high individualism relates to a strong hedonistic motive in consumption, suggesting that products positioned to emphasize the distinctive sensory appeal are likely to attract a significant attention from consumers (Roth, 1995; Kale, 1995). In the same vein, the interrelationship of the corresponding brand associations is also reflective of cultural differences. Depending on how a car is perceived and interpreted by consumers, “good styling” could be causally related to “fuel economic” and “good acceleration” in one country or could be attributed to “latest technology” or “sporty” in another. Similarly, “fun to drive” and “exciting” might be converged for being semantically correlated in one country but be diverged in the other. Furthermore, “perceived quality” might be more likely to be associated with symbolic related associations such as “prestige” and “luxurious features” in countries that are characterized at a rather higher level of individualism. In contrast, “perceived quality” could be associated with utilitarian related associations such as “reliability”, “durability” and “safety” in countries that are 17




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

characterized at a rather higher level of uncertainty avoidance (Figure 3). Therefore we propose the second research proposition: P2.

Table I Countries/metropolitan areas surveyed Countries

The factor structures of brand image in terms of the corresponding brand associations and the sequence of the factors/dimensions is reflective of nation’s cultures.

Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China UK France Germany India Italy Japan South Korea Mexico The Netherlands Russia Spain Taiwan Thailand Turkey USA

National economic factors may also affect the factor structure of brand image. The assumption underlying consumerisation is that markets grow with affluence and industrialisation, from being manufacturer and product oriented towards being consumer oriented, and brand driven (Darley and Johnson, 1993). In low consumerized markets, a brand’s role is centred on product difference, i.e. utilitarian or functionality related. A brand’s role changes however when a market moves towards high consumerization, with a brand becoming imbued with personality, i.e. symbolic and sensory appeal (e.g. Solomon, 1999; Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Therefore, consumers from less developed countries will be more likely to focus on the utilitarian image dimension. In contrast, consumers from developed countries will be more likely focusing on nonutilitarian image, i.e. symbolic and sensory appeal (Goodyear, 1996). Level of economic development also provides implications regarding the correspondence of brand associations underlying each image dimension. A country’s economic development, which is related to its infrastructure development and its consumer’s intellectual level, has an effect on the effectiveness of communication strategy. A more advanced infrastructure results in the greater exchange of product information, alternatively the receivers’ intellect improves their comprehension of message received. As such, it is posited that consumers from developed countries tend to be able to develop a complete set of associations. Thus, the third research proposition can be proposed: P3.

Total

Market size (%) Metropolitan areas 1.5 1.0 4.3 2.6 3.1 5.1 5.6 8.3 1.6 4.3 15.5 3.7 0.8 1.2 2.9 2.4 1.1 1.2 0.6 33.5

Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane Brussels, Liege, Charleois, Antwerp, Gent Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver Beijing, Shanghai London, Birmingham, Manchester Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles Nurnberg, Leipzig, Bochum, Hamburg Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore Rome, Milan, Bari Fukuoka, Tokyo, Osaka, Sapporo Seoul, Kyunggi Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterey Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague Moscow, St Petersburg, Nizhni-Novgorod Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, Bilbao Taipei, Kaohsiung Bangkok, Chiangmai, Haad Yai Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Atlanta, St Louis

100

Note: Market size is based on the proportion of new vehicle sales across countries in 1996

Respondents were selected according to being resident in a metropolitan area and having bought a new automobile during the past six months (July to December 1996). A list of brands that were used as stimuli for brand recognition, based on which brand associations were measured, is summarized below. (Note: brand names were read out by the interviewers based on rotating sequence and only brands that respondent was aware of were measured for brand associations.)

The sequence of the factors/dimensions and the corresponding brand associations is reflective of nation’s level of economic development.

An empirical application

Corporate brand . BMW; . Chrysler; . Daewoo; . Daihatsu; . Fiat; . Ford; . GM; . Honda; . Hyundai; . Izuzu; . Kia; . Mazda; . Mercedes; . Mitsubishi; . Nissan; . Peugeot; . Porsche; . Renault; . Saab; . Samsung; . Subaru; . Suzuki;

We present results by applying the proposed benefit-based multi-dimensional image construct to automobile brands for two reasons related to product feature. First, we are interested in exploring image dimension for a product for which both utilitarian and non-utilitarian motives are a motivating factor. Second, we are interested in a product category in which majority of brands have a well-established image in international markets. Description of the existing data set employed An existing data set owned by MORPACE International, a multi-national research firm, was employed. Data covering the top 20 automobile markets consisting of 4,320 eligible new car owners during September-October 1997, provided a good representation of the global car market. In considering heterogeneity within countries and the fact that consumers in metropolitan areas are believed to be more knowledgeable about global brands (Hassan and Katsanis, 1994), 70 metropolitan areas, presented in Table I, were selected. Although these samples might not be representative of their respective countries populations, they are relatively homogeneous within a matched-samples criterion. 18

. . .




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

A questionnaire and a series of brand associations were then developed on the basis of the findings from the focus group discussions. An extensive cross-national pre-test in each surveyed metropolitan area was conducted before fieldwork conduction. The questionnaires were than amended according to post pilot study feedback from each country and then operationalized into scale items. Questionnaires were initially constructed in English. Subjects in Australia, the UK, Canada and the USA, where English is the official language, received an English version of the questionnaire. Bilingual personnel who were fluent in English translated questionnaires for the remaining countries into local languages. The questionnaires were then back translated into English to ensure accuracy and enhance translation equivalence (Douglas and Craig, 1983).

Toyota; Volkswagen; and Volvo.

Individual brand . Acura; . Alfa Romeo; . Buick; . Cadillac; . Chevrolet; . Citroen; . Dodge; . Eagle; . GMC; . Holden; . Infiniti; . Jaguar; . Jeep; . Lancia; . Land Rover; . Lexus; . Lincoln; . Mercury; . Oldsmobile; . Opel; . Plymouth; . Pontiac; . Rover; . Seat; . Saturn; . Talbot; and . Vauxhall.

Measures Unlike the general probabilistic conception, attitude and beliefs were measured as dichotomous and qualitative judgments in the employed data set. That is, a value of 1 or 0 had been assigned to the probability that an object has or does not have a specific benefit. Although reducing the scale of association to presence/absence decreased analytical sensitivity and limited analytical options, the use of a dichotomous measure had practical implications for data collection. At times, researchers found their respondents too naive or too impatient to make fine judgments or to respond in terms of a continuous scale for a long list of stimuli. In its application in cross-national research, the use of binary or dichotomous scales has been proposed for measuring consumers’ perceptions and preferences in developing countries (Malhotra, 1988). Nevertheless, we note that the convenience of data collection is obtained at the expense depth information.

A multi-stage sampling procedure consisting of three stages was employed by MORPACE. In the initial stage, sample size in each country was determined arbitrarily: samples of 200 were decided for each country with the exception of Japan (300) and the USA (370) because of the larger sales volume in these two countries. In subsequent stages, the sample size assigned in each country was divided into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive sub-groups based on the proportion of population in each metropolitan area within a country. In each area, the sample size within a given category was then determined according to the proportion of automobile sales volume in terms of makes and segments. In the final stage, instead of being drawn on probability, individual samples were recruited through the intercept method given that the access of a complete sampling frame is not feasible. Prior to conducting the main survey, focus group discussions were undertaken in each country. Two focus groups were administered (seven to nine participants, recruited on the basis of a well-defined target market, per group) in each country using qualitative techniques, i.e. free association task and projective approach. This method was conducted to offset the limitation of the free-elicitation method that generates low quantities of elicited thoughts. Participants indicated the desirability and importance of numerous attributes, with the associations mentioned by the majority selected as salient beliefs about automobiles. A total of 14 associations were selected: acceleration, dealer services, exciting, fuel economy, fun to drive, latest technology, luxury features, made to last, perceived high quality, prestigious, reliable, safe in accidents, speed, sporty, styling and value for money.

Result of the empirical analysis Examining the formation of brand image at globe level We explore the dimensionality of brand image at a pooleddata level, where the global sample, comprising all countries and brands, are analyzed. For each brand, respondents indicated whether the association appropriately described the brand[1]. Principal component analysis (PCA) approach was employed to explore the dimensionality since nominal scales were used for data collection. The rotation method used is Varimax with Kaiser normalization, which is the most commonly used rotating method for orthogonal rotation (i.e. to keep the rotated factors uncorrelated). The first five components having Eigenvalues larger than one were extracted from the global sample. Further, matrix pattern of components (i.e. correspondence of brand associations underlying each image dimension) provided aids in naming the five dimensions extracted (Tables II and III). As illustrated, based on interpretability criteria, four brand image dimensions underlying brand associations were identified over the global sample. Dimensions identified were: . the symbolic dimension including “prestigious” and “luxury features”; . the sensory dimension including “exciting”, “good acceleration” and “speed and fun to drive”; . the economic dimension consisting of “good fuel economy”, “dealer service” and “good value for money”; 19




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Table II Eigenvalues using global sample Component

Total

1 2 3 4 5

1.452 1.37 1.136 1.055 1.002

Initial eigenvalue Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage 9.683 9.131 7.575 7.035 6.677

9.683 18.814 26.389 33.424 40.101

Total

Extraction sums of squared loading Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage

1.452 1.37 1.136 1.055 1.002

9.683 9.131 7.575 7.035 6.677

9.683 18.814 26.389 33.424 40.101

Table III Results of PCA using global sample Symbolic Luxury features Prestigious High quality Fun to drive Exciting Good acceleration and speed Good dealer service Good fuel economy Good value for money Sporty Reliable Durable Safety in accident Latest techonology Good styling

.

.

Experiential/sensory

Image dimension Economic

Utilitarian

Futuristic

0.707 0.697 0.679 0.651 0.493 0.627 0.535 0.493 20.474 0.615 0.574 0.566 0.705 0.625

the relative importance of image dimension and the correspondence of brand association. Tables IV and V summarize the results of principal components and the related KMO and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity derived from the country-by-country analyses. As is shown in Table V, the analyses are appropriate (with KMO value between 0.5 and 1.0) across all of the national samples except India (0.47). Table IV indicates that while the four image dimensions identified from global sample remained across the majority of national samples, the correspondence of brand associations underlying each image dimensions varied. “Perceived high quality” was associated either with the symbolic (Australia, the UK, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the USA), utilitarian (Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands and Thailand) or noneconomic (Spain) associations across nations. Although “value for money” was associated to economic related associations for the majority of samples (e.g. Australia, the UK, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, Spain, Taiwan and Turkey) and negatively related to symbolic associations (Belgium, Mexico, Russia and the USA). However, “value for money” was also found to be positively associated to “good acceleration and speed” in China, “good styling” in France and South Korea, and had insignificant loading value in Brazil and Japan. Quality and value for money were evaluative attributes at higher level of abstraction, which provided summary indicators of overall brand evaluation. As such, both of them could be the aggregated product of brand associations related to different

the utilitarian dimension including “reliable”, “made to last” and “safe in accidents”; and the futuristic dimension consisting of “latest technology” and “good styling”.

The presence of an economic dimension, which reflects the consumer’s economic need, is a supplement to the suggested product concepts (Park et al., 1986). The idea of treating an economic dimension as a distinct dimension is supported by Doyle (1989) who suggested that one consumer need is likely to be economic and functional (other than emotional and psychological). “Styling” and “latest technology” that underlie the fifth dimension are the two important product futures specifically associated with automobile brands but are seldom explored previously. Examining the formation of brand image at nation level We extracted image dimensions through PCA for each individual market with the objective to assess the applicability of the dimensional structure uncovered above in different cultural contexts. Specifically, we are interested in the questions: . To what extent will the brand image perceived by consumers in a particular country also be organized around the five dimensions? and . To what extent that culture-specific brand image construct will emerge? More importantly, we focus on identifying the potential impact of national characteristics on brand image in terms of 20

BEL/FRA/NET ITY/(SPN)

Safety in accident Good dealer service

GRM/ITY/RUS

GRM/ITY/RUS

GRM/SK/TUR

BEL/SK/TUR

BEL/(BRA)/SK

Component 2

21

Good styling

GRM/ITY/RUS/SK AUL/BRA/(CAN)/THA/ (IND) Good feul economy (CAN)/ITY/(JPN)/ MEX/ AUL/BRA/NET/THA/ (SPN) (TUR)/IND Good value for money (CHN)/ITY/MEX/(RUS)/ AUL/(BEL)/(CAN)/NET/ (SPN)/(USA)/IND THA Fun to drive BRA/GRM/SK/TUR GBR/CAN/CHN/FRA/ JPN/MEX/SPN/TWN/ USA Exciting BRA/GRM/SK/TUR GBR/CHN/FRA/JPN/ MEX/SPN/TWN/USA Good acceleration and speed BRA/GRM/SK/TUR (GBR)/FRA/JPN/TWN/ IND Sporty GRM/(ITY)/SK GBR/CAN/MEX/SPN/ USA Latest techonology THA

BEL/FRA/NET

AUL/CAN/CHN/JPN/ (MEX)/RUS/TWN/THA/ USA/(IND) AUL/GBR/CAN/CHN/ JPN/(MEX)/RUS/TWN/ THA/USA AUL/BEL/GBR/CAN/FRA/ NET/SPN/TWN/USA BEL/FRA/NET/IND

Component 1

Durable

Reliable

High quality

Prestige

Luxurious features

Benefit associations

Table IV summary of PCA on a country-by-country basis

GBR/CHN/GRM/TWN

CAN/NET CAN/ITY/(RUS)/USA NET BRA/GBA/USA

AUL/BEL/RUS/THA BEL/CHN/MEX/THA AUL/(JPN)/(TWN) MEX/SPN/IND

(BRA)/FRA/TUR

AUL/FRA/NET/SPN

(MEX)/SK/(TUR)

BEL

GBR/CHN BEL/(TUR)

GBR/(JPN)/MEX/(SPN)/ THA GBR

ITY/MEX

Component 5

AUL/CAN/CHN/GRM/ (ITY)/JPN/NET/RUS/SK/ TWN/TUR BEL/GBA/(CHN)/MEX/ AUL/CAN/GRM/JPN/ (TUR)/USA NET/SK/SPN/TWN

BEL/BRA/ITY

AUL/RUS/THA

GBR/(CHN)/GRM/ TWN

FRA/SK/(USA)

BRA/CAN/MEX/SK/USA BEL/GBR/GRM/JPN/TWN

AUL/CHN/TWN

JPN/THA

GRM/SPN

GBR/GRM

Component 4

AUL/CHN/JPN/MEX/ SPN/TWN/THA AUL/JPN/SPN/TWN/TUR FRA/RUS/SK

BRA/CAN/SK/TUR/USA

BRA/CAN/SK/TUR/ USA

FRN/ITY/(MEX)/NET

FRN/ITY/NET/SPN

Component 3

FRA

CHN/RUS

FRA

NET/(TUR)

CHN/NET

BRA

TUR

Component 6

RUS

RUS

CHN

Component 7

Universal appeals with local specifications Journal of Product & Brand Management

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Table V KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity AUS

BEL

BRA

GRB

CAN

CHN

FRA

GRM

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.52 0.58 0.61 of sampling adequacy Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3764.70 2735.79 2249.83 2418.51 3157.34 1301.22 2759.64 4020.78 df 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 JAN

MEX

NET

RUS

SK

SPN

TWN

THA

IND 0.47

ITA 0.59

654.97 2151.67 105.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 TUR

USA

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.55 0.59 0.55 0.59 0.58 0.53 0.65 of sampling adequacy Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2035.58 1487.17 2946.53 1520.15 1879.05 1725.95 3448.73 1855.33 1076.28 8115.43 df 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Notes: AUS: Australia; BEL: Belgium; BRA: Brazil; GRB: Great Britain; CAN: Canada; CHN: China; FRA: France; GRM: Germany; IND: India; ITA: Italy; JAN: Japan; MEX: Mexico; NET: Netherlands; RUS: Russia; SK: South Korea; SPN: Spain; TWN: Taiwan; THA: Thailand; TUR: Turkey; USA: United States of America

image dimensions depending on how they were interpreted by consumers in each market. Overall, the correspondence of associations underlying each brand image dimension was weaker for less developed countries such as Brazil, China, India, Russia and Turkey. For instance, sensory dimension was formed with the correspondence of “exciting”, “fun to drive”, “good acceleration and speed” and “sporty” for British, German and South Korean samples but only “exciting” and “fun to drive” for Chinese and Russian samples. In these countries, more image dimensions that consisted of fewer brand associations were identified. In contrast, for Germany and the USA, where the market system is well developed, the top four dimensions explained 37.42 percent and 36.68 percent of variance, compared with 31.50 percent and 32.40 percent for Indian and Chinese samples respectively (Table VI). The divergence of brand association in these countries could be partly attributed to marketers’ attitudes and consumers’ characteristics. Kaynak and Hudanah (1985) suggest that company executives in the less developed countries had little interest in building brand image as a marketing management function. From the consumers’ perspective, low rates of literacy and per capita income in these countries tended to hinder the marketing practice of companies. Next, the relative importance of image dimension was examined based on the sequence of components (i.e. dimensions) extracted. This indicated the relative weight of emphasis on each dimension in forming brand image. It was found that, across all non-European countries except Brazil, South Korea and Turkey, the first dimension was dominated by symbolic or the combination of negatively related symbolic and economic associations (Canadian, Japanese and Mexican samples). This finding suggested that symbolic appeal is the most important image dimension that differentiates one brand from the others regardless of cultural and economic difference. The inclusion of two negatively correlated associations in one dimension introduces a trade-off between them: for instance, a brand that is positioned as having “luxury features” might not be related to “fuel economy”. In practice, a pricing strategy usually reflected economic appeals at the lower end and symbol/status appeals at the higher end of the price continuum.

There were also differences among European countries. Among which, the three countries that had their utilitarian dimension extracted as the first factor were Belgium, France and The Netherlands. According to Hofstede’s (1983, 1991) country rankings on the basis of the cultural dimensions, these three countries exhibited a moderate to high level of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1983, 1991), suggesting that appeals to a product’s functionality (i.e. the utilitarian dimension) may induce favorable consumer response in these countries (Kale, 1995). Alternatively, the two European countries having their economic dimension extracted as the first factor were Italy and Spain. The relative larger weight on economic dimensions might be attributed to the fact that Spain and Italy are characterized at a higher level of uncertainty avoidance and lower level of economic development among European countries. Finally, the first dimensions extracted from British and German samples were symbolic and sensory respectively.

Conclusions This paper has aimed to explore the factorial structure of automobile brand image in the context of a cross-national study. Brand image has been conceptualized with a set of benefit-based brand associations that reflect its complex and abstract structural properties. The proposed benefit-based multi-dimensional brand image construct has been examined with the use of data collected in an existing survey covering 20 nations. We have also sought to reach three research aims. In line with our first research proposition, this study has provided empirical evidence that supports the applicability of multiple brand image dimensions corresponding to the consumer’s sensory, utilitarian, symbolic and economic needs at the global level. The image dimensions uncovered not only cognitive attitude components (i.e., utilitarian and economic dimensions) but also affective components (i.e. sensory and symbolic dimensions). This finding contributes to the understanding of the underlying image dimensions of durable goods and provides a conceptual basis for linking brand image and consumer needs. The brand image dimensions verified in our study could serve to guide marketing managers in charting global strategies for their products. 22




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Table VI Summary of initial eigenvalue Initial eigenvalue Percentage of Cumulative variance percentage

Component

Total

Australia 1 2 3 4 5

1.69 1.356 1.196 1.175 1.043

11.265 9.038 7.971 7.836 6.95

11.265 20.304 28.274 36.11 43.061

Brazil 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.549 1.382 1.18 1.067 1.038 1.019

10.327 9.211 7.87 7.116 6.918 6.793

10.327 19.538 27.408 34.523 41.442 48.235

China 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.392 1.269 1.107 1.092 1.085 1.029 1.001

9.281 8.462 7.381 7.279 7.232 6.857 6.67

9.281 17.743 25.123 32.402 39.634 46.491 53.161

Germany 1 2 3 4 5

1.69 1.488 1.269 1.166 1.041

11.264 9.921 8.462 7.775 6.939

11.264 21.185 29.647 37.422 44.361

Italy 1 2 3 4 5

1.535 1.367 1.194 1.161 1.026

10.236 9.115 7.96 7.74 6.838

10.236 19.351 27.311 35.051 41.889

Mexico 1 2 3 4 5

1.453 1.345 1.14 1.096 1.023

9.684 8.968 7.602 7.304 6.822

9.684 18.653 26.255 33.559 40.381

Russia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.418 1.349 1.134 1.097 1.058 1.036 1.003

9.452 8.99 7.561 7.316 7.054 6.905 6.684

9.452 18.443 26.004 33.319 40.374 47.279 53.963

Initial eigenvalue Percentage of Cumulative variance percentage

Component

Total

Belgium 1 2 3 4 5

1.512 1.45 1.219 1.123 1.024

10.082 9.665 8.125 7.486 6.824

10.082 19.747 27.872 35.359 42.182

Canada 1 2 3 4 5

1.65 1.434 1.158 1.033 1.011

11.002 9.558 7.722 6.889 6.739

11.002 20.56 28.283 35.171 41.91

France 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.569 1.403 1.225 1.154 1.04 1.008

10.459 9.352 8.166 7.692 6.931 6.719

10.459 19.811 27.978 35.669 42.601 49.32

India 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.228 1.199 1.17 1.128 1.106 1.042 1.005

8.185 7.991 7.797 7.523 7.376 6.95 6.701

8.185 16.176 23.973 31.497 38.873 45.823 52.523

Japan 1 2 3 4 5

1.443 1.342 1.117 1.059 1.029

9.623 8.947 7.449 7.06 6.857

9.623 18.57 26.019 33.079 39.936

The Netherlands 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.519 1.393 1.176 1.099 1.083 1.014

10.123 9.285 7.84 7.33 7.219 6.76

10.123 19.409 27.249 34.579 41.798 48.558

South Korea 1 2 3 4 5

1.578 1.357 1.192 1.153 1.029

10.523 9.044 7.947 7.684 6.861

10.523 19.567 27.514 35.198 42.058

(continued)

23




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Table VI Initial eigenvalue Percentage of Cumulative variance percentage

Component

Total

Spain 1 2 3 4 5

1.479 1.35 1.147 1.074 1.043

9.857 9.001 7.647 7.159 6.953

9.857 18.858 26.505 33.664 40.618

Thailand 1 2 3 4 5

1.535 1.24 1.143 1.116 1.057

10.231 8.267 7.618 7.437 7.049

10.231 18.498 26.116 33.553 40.602

United Kingdom 1 2 3 4 5

1.565 1.365 1.191 1.123 1.073

10.435 9.097 7.939 7.484 7.154

10.435 19.532 27.471 34.954 42.109

Our study also shows that the factorial structure of brand image – in terms of the relative importance of the image dimension, the correspondence of the specific associations underlying each dimension, and the interrelationships among the underlying associations – vary across markets. These results are consistent with our second and third research propositions that the factor structure of brand image reflects a nation’s culture and its level of economic development. Consumers from well-developed markets such as Australia, the UK, Canada, Germany and the USA tend to have rather convergent brand associations underlying the various brand image dimensions. In contrast, consumers from less developed countries tend to be reliant on a single association. Where cultural effect is concerned, the symbolic dimension is generally the most important image dimension that differentiates one brand from another regardless of cultural differences. However, in Belgium, France and The Netherlands, which are rated with a moderate to high level of uncertainty according to Hofstede’s (1991) country rankings, the utilitarian dimension is the most important. The findings of this study highlight the importance of national culture to the factorial structure of brand image perceptions. These findings are important from a theoretical perspective because they may help us understand why the underlying benefits of image in each dimension are differently defined and why certain image appeals are not effective in some countries. It is also important from an applied perspective, because the key to establishing a successful international strategy lies in understanding the effectiveness of marketing programs in different markets. Understanding the similarities or differences of the factorial structure of brand image across the globe facilitates the formation of a successful global image strategy. By exploring brand image structure at the global level and determining the relative importance of

Initial eigenvalue Percentage of Cumulative variance percentage

Component

Total

Taiwan 1 2 3 4 5

1.584 1.504 1.176 1.158 1.082

10.562 10.025 7.841 7.72 7.211

10.562 20.587 28.428 36.148 43.359

Turkey 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.329 1.248 1.126 1.064 1.033 1.016

8.861 8.323 7.506 7.095 6.887 6.772

8.861 17.184 24.691 31.786 38.673 45.445

USA 1 2 3 4

1.764 1.525 1.14 1.073

11.761 10.166 7.601 7.151

11.761 21.927 29.527 36.679

image dimensions and their underlying brand associations at the national level, a multi-national firm may reach global consumers by employing the universal appeal (i.e. the superordinate image dimension) of its products while attracting local consumers by supplementing the universal appeal with the specific focus (i.e. correspondence of associations) of the products. Furthermore, from the PCA results, the type of interrelationship among associations – i.e. associations are causally related, associations are related by attributing to a common antecedent, or associations are related for representing the same meaning – can be explored. The specific interrelationships among the corresponding associations underlying an image dimension serve as an effective lever in developing the communication message: a scenario – where the message relevant to the consumer’s cognitive representations of brand associations is delivered – can be created along with the supplementary information regarding the cultural profile of the particular country for the local market. A global brand image that delivers a universal appeal while highlighting specific emphases for local markets would be able to maximize turnover in a globally competitive environment. Finally, as most major consumer behavior theories have been developed and tested in the USA, very little attention has been devoted to investigating the validity of the theories in a cross-national context (Lee and Green, 1991). The results derived from the 20 diverse nations in the present study, which is considered to be substantive compared with the existing cross-national research, not only enhance our understanding of brand image structure but also provide a strong test of the empirical generalizability of automobile brand image dimensionality in a global context. As the globalization process quickens and more non-Western 24




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

countries join the global market, examining the cross-national applicability of consumer behavior constructs is becoming increasingly important.

interval scale instead of the dichotomous scale, the percentage of variance explained might be higher. Also, the relatively poorer quality of PCA results for the less developed countries, such as China, Russia, India and Turkey, might have hampered further analysis. Specifically, the KMO and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity for the Indian sample appeared to be inappropriate. These might also have been caused by the nature of the measurement scale used. Given that the data set used in our study has been taken from a global survey conducted by a research firm, the potential measurement problem derived from the instrument used has been beyond our control. Moreover, the employed data set is a little dated. As such, whether the differences found between developed and less developed countries are “real” and “reflective” of current situation or not warrants further study. Therefore, another direction for further research would be to conduct tracking studies to monitor any possible changes.

Limitation and extensions Although the findings drawn from the diverse nations suggest that the cultural dimension and the level of economic development of a country might be related to the importance of image dimension and the formation of brand associations, stronger statistical evidence that reveals the significant effect of national factors on brand image are desirable. In addition, as with any empirical study, this research inevitably has its limitations, which presents opportunities for further research: . extensions of the present framework to other product categories; . extensions of the national factors; . extensions of the brand associations; and . measurement improvement.

Note

First, as much of the existing brand image research pertains to consumer goods (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park and Srinivasan, 1994) industrial goods and services would be an interesting area for extension; the generalizability of the results to other product categories could then be explored. Second, future research could investigate other typologies of national characteristics, such as the one developed by Schwartz (1994), or it could extend the current framework by including the Confucian dynamic dimension. Apart from cultural factors, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, automobile import regulations and the general predisposition of a population towards imported brands are other possible factors affecting consumers’ perception of brand image. Where brand difference is concerned, the length of time that the brand has been in the market, the competitive conditions under which the brands are operating, advertising and marketing expenditures, and the positioning strategies applied in each case might also affect the formations of brand image perception. For instance, Kirmani et al. (1999) concluded that consumers perceive prestige brands differently than functional brands in that prestige brands are more closely connected to a consumer’s self-concept. However, the aggregated analyses of this study have not taken into account brand differences. Third, the set of brand associations could be expanded to include users’ imagery, given that brands could be used to express consumers’ personalities and characteristics, and both hold distinct meanings to consumers. The interrelationships between these extensive image dimensions, which represent various associations, could shed some light on the complexity of brand image structure. All these potential factors could be considered in future cross-national studies so that the universal validity of brand image research may be achieved. Further, broadening the scope of information would afford better insight into key differences that determine the importance of the image dimension and the structures of associations. Finally, with any empirical research, measurement improvements are possible and important for future research. For instance, cumulatively, the top five components explained only about 40 per cent of variance. This might be due to the use of the dichotomous scale. If the perception of brand association was measured using the

1 Unit of analysis used in this study was consumer’s valuation for a specific brand, which results in the total record number being 229,596 (4,320 53). However, note that only the record in which evaluated brands that respondents are aware of are included in the analysis. This leads to a total valid case number of 155,210.

References Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38, Spring, pp. 102-20. Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluation of brand extension”, Journal of Marketing, pp. 27-41. Aaker, J.L. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2001), “Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spain brand personality constructs”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508. Belk, R.W. (1984), “Cultural and historical differences in concepts of self and their effects on attitudes toward having and giving”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 753-60. Belk, R.W. and Pollay, R.W. (1985), “Images of ourselves: the good life in twentieth century advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 887-98. Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43. Claeys, C., Vanden Abeele, P. and Swinnen, A. (1995), “Consumers’ means-end chains for ‘think’ and ‘feel’ products”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 193-208. Darley, W.K. and Johnson, D.M. (1993), “Cross-national comparison of consumer attitudes toward consumerism in four developing countries”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 37-54. del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “The effects of brand associations on consumer response”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4/5, pp. 410-26. Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), “In search of brand image: a foundation analysis”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 110-9. 25




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Douglas, S.P. and Craig, S. (1983), “International marketing research”, in Douglas, S.P. and Craig, S. (Eds), International Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Doyle, P. (1989), “Building successful brands: the strategic options”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5, pp. 77-95. Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX. Farquhar, P.H. and Herr, P.M. (1991), “The dual structure of brand associations”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Goodyear, M. (1996), “Divided by a common language: diversity and deception in the world of global marketing”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 105-22. Hassan, S.S. and Katsanis, L.P. (1994), “Global market segmentation strategies and trends”, in Hassan, S.S. and Kaynak, E. (Eds), Globalization of Consumer Markets: Structure and Strategies, International Business Press, New York, NY. Haugtvedt, C., Leavitt, C. and Schneier, W.L. (1991), “Cognitive strength of established brands: memory, attitudinal, and structural approaches”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 247-61. Hermans, S.E. and Kempen, H.J.G. (1998), “Moving cultures: the perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53, pp. 1111-20. Hofstede, G. (1983), “National cultural in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 13 No. 1-2, pp. 46-74. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultural and Organization: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London. Holbrook, M.B. and Schindler, R.M. (1994), “Age, sex, and attitude toward the past as predictors of consumers’ aesthetic taste for cultural products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp. 412-22. Kale, S.H. (1995), “Grouping Euroconsumers: a culturebased clustering approach”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 35-48. Kaynak, E. and Hudanah, B.E. (1985), “Operationalising the relationship between marketing and economic development: some insights from less-developed countries”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 48-65. Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22. Kirmani, A. and Zeithaml, V. (1991), “Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Kirmani, A., Sood, S. and Bridges, S. (1999), “The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 88-101. Lee, C. and Green, R.T. (1991), “Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavior intentions model”, Journal of International Business Studies, 2nd quarter, pp. 289-305.

Levitt, T. (1983), “The globalization of markets”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 92-102. Lienert, A. (1998), “Brand management: at the big three”, Management Review, pp. 53-7. Loken, B. and Ward, J. (1990), “Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 111-26. Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 350. Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G.M. and Harris, J. (1993), “Consumer tipping: a cross-country study”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, December, pp. 478-88. McEnally, M.R. and de Chernatony, L. (1999), “The evolving nature of branding: consumer and managerial considerations”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 5-16. Madden, T.J., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000), “Managing images in different cultures: a cross-national study of color meanings and preferences”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 90-108. Malhotra, N.K. (1988), “A methodology for measuring consumer preference in developing countries”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 52-66. Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I. (1998), “Heterogeneity of regional trading blocs and global marketing strategies: a multicultural perspective”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 476-506. Nevett, T. (1992), “Differences between American and British television advertising explanations and implications”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 61-71. Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 271-88. Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 135-45. Rohner, R.P. (1984), “Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 111-38. Rossiter, J. and Percy, L. (1991), “A better advertising planning grid”, Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 11-21. Roth, M.S. (1995), “Effects of global market conditions on brand image customization and brand performance”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 55-75. Schwartz, S. (1994), “Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitc¸ibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Application, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85-119. Solomon, M.R. (1999), “The value of status and the status of value”, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London, pp. 63-84. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999), “A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 55-69. Szymanski, D.M., Sundar, G.B. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1993), “Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-17.

26




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

Tse, D.K., Belk, R.W. and Zhou, N. (1989), “Becoming a consumer society: a longitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the people’s Republic of China and Taiwan”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 457-72. Whitelock, J. and Chung, D. (1989), “Cross-cultural advertising: an empirical study”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 291-310. Wu, T.W., Day, R.L. and Mackay, D.B. (1988), “Consumer benefits versus product attributes: an experimental test”, Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 88-114. Yi, Y. (1989), “An investigation of the structure of expectancy-value attitude and its implications”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 71-83.

Hsieh and Lindridge characterize brand image as “. . .a set of perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in the consumers memory.” Successful global marketing requires consistency in the core brand associations across international markets. It does not matter if these associations are specific to a given culture so long as that association remains positive. Positive national characteristics can be used in this way so long as we recognize that overall image of that country will affect consumer behaviour and is beyond our control as brand marketers. Such consideration leads us to examine that actual nature of associations and, especially, the extent to which they are abstract. Abstraction draws away from utilitarian considerations, tends to be less market-specific and relates more closely to the consumer. Hsieh and Landridge comment that “. . . associations at a higher level of abstraction such as benefit and brand attitude, possess summarizing information and have a closer relationship with the consumer’s self than do product attributes.” This distinction between the utilitarian product attribute and the emotional or affective brand benefit is important and takes us back to first principles – “sell the sizzle not the sausage”. The brand is intended for the consumer to use as a projection of self not just as a means of distinguishing one product from the next.

Further reading Goodyear, M. (1993), “Review the concept of brands and branding”, Marketing and Research Today, pp. 75-9.

Executive summary This executive summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.

So why make local variations? Given that we are advised to devise brands that play to universal emotional wants and affective needs, why then should we not simply apply the precepts of standardization and be done with it? Several considerations must be taken account of at this point. First, the emotions may be universal but different cultures place different emphases on the importance of such wants. Love may be all around us but its cultural bonds are considerable – the concept of emotional love is shown very differently in a traditional religious community when compared to a bohemian New York suburb. As a result the same emotional construct may be portrayed very differently in different cultures. Thus we are communicating the same emotional or affective message using very different advertising executions. The core brand identity is unaffected but the variation of message allows the same impact on the consumer without cutting across prevailing local mores.

Global image, local variation The extension of free trade, the growth of important new markets such as China and the significance of globalization have given rise to a renewed interest in international marketing. In particular, practitioners are concerned to understand the choices between standardization and localism – whether to apply a standard marketing approach regardless of region or to create individual campaigns within each area. In reality, absolute standardization has never been achievable since the nature of individual markets varies significantly – language considerations, media availability and much else affects the specific marketing strategy. At the same time the significance of major investment in brand development drags the brand owner towards a more standardized approach. The balance that needs striking is between a standardized approach that overlooks important national differences and a customized approach that neglects homogeneity and leads to diseconomies of scale. The right balance can make the difference between success and failure in international marketing.

Brands are not one dimensional The description above is based on an assumption that a brand contains one over-riding emotional or affective association. We know this not to be true – brands are complex constructs combining a variety of descriptors. We cannot describe a brand image using just one descriptor since a number of dimensions are involved. These dimensions range from the purely utilitarian through classic benefits to less tangible emotional or affective associations. Since the brand image sits with the consumer (it is created through the interaction of our communications with the consumer’s thoughts) local considerations will always need to be factored into our brand communication. If – despite the universality of the core brand image – our communication contains elements that jar with local sensitivities, preferences and economic needs, there is the risk that this universal brand image will be lost and the consumer will reject the brand. Because of this, we need to examine the local applicability of the various dimensions

Brand image and localism For a brand to succeed we need it to have a set of consistent associations and attributes. Regardless of the market we want the same responses to be forthcoming from target consumers. To work on an international scale these values need to approach the universal – if the brand image becomes too tied to a given culture there is the risk that our strategy – however well adapted it is to local circumstances – will fail. 27




Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14 –28

making up the brand not just the applicability of the overall brand image. Hsieh and Lindridge bring us back to an old debate – customization versus standardization – via a different angle. The debate is not just about the economies of scale that come from standardized approaches or the greater responsiveness of localized methods but is about how a universal brand concept plugs into the mind of the

coonsumer. It does so through the filter of local culture, mores and tradition and marketers ignore this at their risk. We need to construct a brand that works at a global level but also to recognize that the particular structure of the resulting brand image varies across markets. (A pre´ cis of the article “Universal appeals with local specifications”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

28