Executive Insights:

Real Differences Between Local and International

Brands: Strategic Implications for International
Marketers

In the current context of globalization, firms have concentrated ABSTRACT

their efforts on the development of international brands. As a
result, international brand portfolios have been restructured,
and many successful local brands have been eliminated. This
article’s objective is to improve the understanding of local
brand differences and competitive advantages relative to inter-
national brands. To achieve this, the authors reanalyzed the
Young & Rubicam database Brand Asset Valuator and exam-
ined more than 744 brands across the four largest countries in
Europe: the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy. The
authors discuss the managerial implications of the findings for
international marketers as they develop their ideal interna-
tional brand portfolios.

Consistent with current trends in globalization, many inter-

national companies have moved from a multidomestic mar- Isabelle Schuiling
keting approach to a global marketing approach. This move and Jean-Noël
to global marketing has had a major impact on company
branding strategies. During the past few years, international Kapferer
companies have concentrated their efforts on the develop-
ment of international brands. For example, Unilever is in the
process of eliminating 1200 brands from its brand portfolio
to concentrate on 400 brands. Procter & Gamble (P&G) has
kept 300 brands, after selling many of its local brands.
L’Oréal has built its success on 16 worldwide brands. Nestlé
has given priority to its 6 strategic worldwide brands, includ-
ing Nescafe and Buitoni, and Mars has invested mainly in
global brand names.

In this context, firms’ focus on the development of interna-

tional brands has had a negative impact on local brands.
Many brands have been eliminated from international brand
portfolios. This trend has been found not only in the fast-
moving consumer goods sector but also in many other types
of industry, including banking, insurance, oil, and retailing.
It might be questioned whether the elimination of these local
brands represents a lost opportunity for international compa-
nies. Strong local brands have traditionally benefited from a
high level of awareness in their countries. Consumers have Submitted December 2003
Accepted July 2004
developed close relationships with local brands over the
© Journal of International Marketing
years, and this represents solid marketing investment in Vol. 12, No. 4, 2004, pp. 97–112
their home markets. ISSN 1069-031X

97
 Both academics and practitioners have focused on the devel-
opment of international and global brands (Boddewyn,
Soehl, and Picard 1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas
2000; Levitt 1983; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Wind 1986). As
such, little work has been done to study the specifics of local
brands. Several articles have mentioned the existence of
local brands (de Chernatony, Halliburton, and Bernarth 1995;
Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001; Halliburton and Hünerberg
1993; Kapferer 2000, 2002), but no in-depth research has
been conducted on their success compared with that of inter-
national and global brands.

However, international managers confront difficult questions

when developing the ideal international brand portfolio
(Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001). They must decide not
only how to build their international brands but also which
local brands to build, which to eliminate, which to sell, and
even which to assimilate under an international brand name.
These are important decisions that significantly influence
any company’s success.

Therefore, it is particularly useful to develop further under-

standing of local brands relative to international brands in
the current globalization context. To achieve this, we con-
ducted exploratory research that covers two phases. The first
phase consisted of interviews with international marketers,
and the second phase involved conducting an analysis of
Young & Rubicam’s (Y&R’s) extensive brand database, Brand
Asset Valuator.

Our objective in this article is to better understand the real

differences between local and international brands. We first
discuss recent perspectives on local and international brand
development and identify the strategic advantages of local
brands compared with international brands. We then evalu-
ate the differences in brand equity between local and inter-
national brands. Last, we conclude by highlighting the impli-
cations of these findings for international marketers.

We define local brands as brands that exist in one country or

PERSPECTIVES ON LOCAL AND in a limited geographical area (Wolfe 1991). Such brands
INTERNATIONAL BRAND may belong to a local, international, or global firm. We define
DEVELOPMENT international brands as brands that have globalized elements
of the marketing strategy or mix. In a more radical sense,
global brands are defined as brands that use the same mar-
keting strategy and mix in all target markets (Levitt 1983).

The debate on global marketing is not new, and the topic has
Global Brand Development been a subject of research for more than 30 years (Boddewyn,
Soelh, and Picard 1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas
2000; Douglas and Wind 1987; Huszagh, Fox, and Day 1986;
Jain 1989; Levitt 1983; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Sorenson and

98 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

Wiechmann 1975). The advantages of moving to interna-
tional and global brands under a global marketing strategy
have frequently been emphasized (Aaker and Joachimsthaler
1999; Buzzell 1968; Kapferer 1992, 2004; Levitt 1983;
Onkvisit and Shaw 1989).

A key advantage of globalization is firms’ opportunity to

benefit from strong economies of scale. It is well-known that
a standardized brand can generate significant cost reductions
in all areas of the business system, including research and
development, manufacturing, and logistics. The shift to a
single global brand name also provides substantial savings in
packaging and communication costs (Bartlett and Ghoshal
1986; Buzzell 1968; Craig and Douglas 2000; Levitt 1983;
Porter 1986). Multinational corporations have leveraged
these economies of scale to gain major competitive advan-
tages in worldwide markets (Douglas and Wind 1987). Such
reductions in costs reduce prices and enhance financial per-
formance. Another advantage is the development of a unique
brand image across countries. It is especially important in
certain product categories, whose brands target worldwide
segments of consumers, such as the affluent and teenager
segments (Hassan and Katsanis 1991).

The speed to market for new product initiatives that interna-

tional brands offer is also important for international compa-
nies, which can now launch new product initiatives in the
fast-moving consumer goods industry on a regional or global
scale within 12 to 18 months. Such a cycle takes much more
time when brand strategies are not globalized. Another
advantage is the possibility of supporting any global brand
with large budgets in the communications area. This is espe-
cially important in the context of very high advertising and
media costs.

However, we note that the push toward development of

international and global brands has been driven more by
supply-driven considerations linked to costs than by market
considerations. In most cases, consumer preference has not
been the primary reason for companies to decide to move to
international and global brands (Kapferer 1991, 2004; Terp-
stra 1987). An example of an international firm that has
accelerated its development of global brands since the early
1990s is P&G. Its objective has been to achieve competitive
advantage in its markets. The benefits that accrue from such
a strategy include significant economies of scale that lead to
reduced costs and thus improved financial performance. It is
not surprising that P&G’s key competitor, Unilever, a strong
proponent of a multidomestic marketing approach,
announced in 1999 that it would further globalize its opera-
tions. The competitive disadvantage of Unilever’s approach
was illustrated clearly by an example in its fabric softener

Local and International Brands 99

 business. Unilever competed in Europe under different
brand names (Robijn, Coccolino, and Mimosin), whereas
P&G had a unique European brand, Lenor, in all countries.

Neither academics nor practitioners have paid much atten-

Local Brand Development tion to local brands. Some authors have pointed out the exis-
tence of local brands (de Chernatony, Halliburton, and
Bernarth 1995; Douglas, Craig, and Nijssen 2001; Halliburton
and Hünerberg 1993; Quelch and Hoff 1986) and have dis-
cussed their characteristics (Ger 1999; Kapferer 2000, 2002;
Schlosser 2002). Other authors have analyzed the impact of
local brand names on brand attractiveness in a Chinese con-
text (Francis, Lam, and Walls 2002; Zhang and Schimitt
2001), but to our knowledge, no one has conducted in-depth
research to further develop the understanding of local brands.

However, in Europe, there are many more local brands than

international brands, though the trend of the proportion of
local brands to international brands is diminishing.
Although the car, computer, and high-tech industries, among
others, are well-known for their strong international brands,
many sectors are still characterized by their local brands. In
Germany’s oil industry, British Petroleum acquired the local
leader Aral and, in view of its strong brand equity, decided to
retain the local brand name. In France, the leading whisky
brands are not the well-known J&B or Johnny Walker but the
local Label 5, Clan Campbell, and William Peel. In the Czech
Republic, Danone did not succeed in imposing its global Lu
brand on that market and has had to use the local brand fran-
chise Opavia to develop its business. In Belgium, the leader
in the mineral water market is the local leader Spa, and it has
shares well above the international leader Evian.

Local brands also represent many years of marketing invest-

ment. They are well-known in their markets and often build
strong relationships with local consumers over the years.
However, strong local brands have essentially been elimi-
nated from multinational brand portfolios, not because they
do not represent strong brand franchises locally, but because
their relative sales volumes do not permit economies of
scale. For example, at the end of the 1990s, P&G considered
eliminating the leading detergent, Dash, in Italy and Belgium
despite the brand’s national institution and extreme prof-
itability in both countries. The company’s motivation at the
time was that Dash created cost complexities in Europe,
where Ariel was the European leader.

The advantages of firms building international brands are

Strategic Advantages of Local substantial and have an inexorable logic. However, local
Brand Development brands also represent strategic advantages that must be con-
sidered. We gathered the data pertaining to the strategic
advantages of local brands during the first phase of the

100 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

exploratory research. This involved interviewing general
managers and marketing directors of ten well-known multi-
national firms: Unilever, Nestlé, P&G, Coca-Cola, Reckitt
Benckiser, Sara Lee, Campbell Food, Bacardi-Martini, Kraft
Jacobs Suchard, and Inbev (formerly Interbrew). We discuss
the advantages of maintaining local brands next.

Better Response to Local Needs. A local brand can be

designed to respond to the local market’s specific needs.
Local brand products have more flexibility than interna-
tional brands, so they can be developed to provide answers
to local consumers’ particular needs. That is, local branding
can not only provide a unique product but also select its
positioning and generate an advertising campaign that
reflects local insights. In contrast, an international brand
must satisfy the largest number of consumers across markets,
and thus they often represent the largest common denomina-
tor from both the product’s and marketing’s perspectives.

Flexibility of Pricing Strategy. Pricing strategies for local

brands can be more flexible and thus can take advantage of a
brand’s strength in specific local markets. There is also no
risk of parallel imports because the brand is not linked to a
regional pricing strategy. Such flexibility can lead to
increased profits because prices can be fixed at higher levels.
In contrast, international brands must remain within a par-
ticular pricing corridor, because comparisons can be easily
made across territories. This is especially true in Europe, fol-
lowing the introduction of the Euro.

Possibility of Responding to Local or International Competi-

tion. A local brand can be used to respond to local or inter-
national competition or even to compete against retailer
brands. A local brand can be repositioned and the marketing
mix adapted accordingly. In contrast, the marketing strategy
for an international brand must follow a predefined regional
or global marketing strategy.

Possibility of Balancing a Portfolio of Brands. An interna-

tional portfolio that mostly comprises international and
global brands can be powerful, but it also presents risks. A
problem that arises with one mega brand in a particular
country can have a negative impact on a worldwide basis.
This was illustrated in 1998 by the example of Coca-Cola in
Belgium. Some consumers became sick after drinking a par-
ticular batch of the product. The news circulated quickly and
globally, and it had a negative impact on Coca-Cola’s brand
image. The international media, including the Internet, is
now able to diffuse news and information instantly around
the world. Another example is the case of Perrier, which had
problems with water purity when benzene was detected in
the product. The U.S. Perrier business has never fully recov-

Local and International Brands 101

 ered from this incident. A lesson that can be learned from
these examples is that a brand portfolio with both strong
local and strong international brands is in a better position to
manage risk on a worldwide basis.

Possibility of Responding to Needs Not Covered by Interna-

tional Brands. To benefit from economies of scale, interna-
tional brands must cover similar segments in many markets.
Profitable segments of the markets that are unique to certain
countries can still represent attractive opportunities for local
brands.

Possibility of Fast Entry into New Markets. A company that

acquires a local brand also acquires a way to enter a market
directly without further large investment. This strategy has
been used frequently in the past. For example, Inbev has
become the number-one brewer in the world by aggressively
acquiring local leaders over the past ten years. Separately,
interviews of international marketers revealed that strong
local brands benefit from awareness and brand equity. Local
brands also develop close relationships with consumers over
time, which leads to a high brand trust.

It is clear that local brands also represent important disad-

vantages, which by and large are linked to cost. The rela-
tively small volumes of products that local brands sell pre-
vent the brands from generating significant economies of
scale in the product or marketing areas.

We have noted the strategic advantages of international and

Brand Equity of Local and local brands, but it is also useful to identify the particulari-
International Brands ties of their brand equities in terms of awareness level and
brand image (Kapferer 1991; Keller 1998). The literature on
international and global brands has provided some indica-
tions of the importance of brand equity. For international
and global brands, research shows that perceived brand glob-
alness could create consumer perceptions of brand superior-
ity (Kapferer 1992, 2004; Shocker, Srivastava, and Ruekert
1994). Research also confirms that quality is among the most
important factors that drive consumer preference for global
brands (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp, Batra,
and Alden 2003).

In addition to quality, international and global brands have

been associated with high prestige or status (Batra et al. 2000;
Kapferer 1992). Recent empirical studies have demonstrated
that prestige is the second factor driving global brand prefer-
ence (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp, Batra, and
Alden 2003). In contrast, some studies have shown that con-
sumers may prefer brands with local connections, and some
argue that there is no intrinsic consumer preference for inter-
national and global brands (De Mooij 1998).

102 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

No research has been conducted on the understanding of
local brand equity. Country-of-origin research provides some
general indications of brand equity on local brands, when
the product’s country of origin is emphasized. Such studies
reveal that country of origin has an impact on consumers’
evaluations of the products (Han and Terpstra 1988; Hong
and Wyer 1989; Johansson, Douglas, and Nonaka 1985;
Samiee 1994; Schooler 1971). Researchers have also found
that consumers tend to evaluate local products more highly
than foreign products (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Han 1989; Kay-
nak and Cavusgil 1983; Nagashima 1977; Schooler 1971),
though this bias varies across consumer segments and coun-
tries (Heslop and Papadopoulos 1993; Shimp and Sharma
1987). Some authors have shown that consumers prefer
brands that they perceive as originating from a nonlocal
country, especially from Western countries, more than they
do local brands and that preference is linked not only to per-
ceived quality but also to social status (Alden, Steenkamp,
and Batra 1999).

To make use of our information sources, we next evaluate the

difference in awareness and brand image attribute, in partic- EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF
ular the attributes of quality, prestige, and trust. We con- THE Y&R DATABASE
ducted a second phase of the exploratory research on the
basis of the secondary analysis of the Y&R worldwide brand
database Brand Asset Valuator. The original Y&R database
covered 44 countries worldwide and 20,000 brands. Three
waves of interviews have been conducted since the database
was created in 1993, and more than 230,000 respondents
have been surveyed to date.

From this database, we selected a sample of 12 product cate-

gories in the food sector (see Table 1). They represent 744 dif-
ferent brand units covering the four largest European coun-
tries: the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy. A
total of 397 brands (53%) are local, and 347 (47%) are inter-
national, as Table 2 indicates. A total of 9739 people were
interviewed from 1999 to 2000. The database is extremely
rich in terms of available data, and thus we were able to ana-
lyze the data on awareness, brand image (48 image criteria
were available to consumers to evaluate each brand), and
brand usage. There were also a relatively high number of
respondents from the total database (9739) and from the
countries under consideration (3460 from Germany [36%],
2474 from the United Kingdom [25%], 1915 from France
[20%], and 1890 from Italy [19%]).

We selected the food sector because it covers many product

categories that offer different levels of globalization. For
example, the alcohol and chewing gum categories have a
majority of international brands at 60% and 56%, respec-
tively. In contrast, the beer and mineral water categories have

Local and International Brands 103

 Number of
Table 1. Number of International
Brands per Product Category Product Number of Local Brands Brands
Category Brands (% of total) (% of total)
1. Alcohol 153 61 (40%) 92 (60%)
2. Chocolate 124 53 (43%) 71 (57%)
3. Beer 119 70 (59%) 49 (41%)
4. Yogurt 72 45 (63%) 27 (37%)
5. Mineral water 45 26 (58%) 19 (42%)
6. Frozen goods 38 24 (63%) 14 (37%)
7. Chewing gum 36 16 (44%) 20 (56%)
8. Fruit juice 36 29 (81%) 7 (19%)
9. Coffee 36 25 (69%) 11 (31%)
10. Ice cream 34 17 (50%) 17 (50%)
11. Soup 26 12 (46%) 14 (54%)
12. Pasta 25 19 (76%) 6 (24%)
TOTAL 744 397 (53%) 347 (47%)

Number of
Table 2. Number of International
Brands per Country Number of Local Brands Brands
Total Brands (% of total) (% of total)
All countries 744 397 (53%) 347 (47%)
France 172 74 (43%) 98 (57%)
Germany 226 139 (62%) 87 (38%)
Italy 177 108 (61%) 69 (39%)
United Kingdom 169 76 (45%) 93 (55%)

a majority of local brands, at 59% and 58%, respectively,

according to the database. Moreover, there are many global,
international, and local players in this industry. Unilever,
Nestlé, Mars, and Kraft Jacobs Suchard are good examples of
international and global firms, and strong local players are
still present in key local markets.

Note that though the food sector was linked fully to local tra-
ditions and cultures at one time, this situation has now
changed, as indicated by the rapid development of many
international brands in this sector, including Nestlé, Danone,
Evian, Barilla, Nutella, and Kraft. Products that reflect local
traditions have gradually been replaced by products that
apparently satisfy the largest number of consumers. This ten-
dency has also been driven by the concentration in the retail-
ing industry. Logically, international brands that belong to
international players are given preference; retailers have a
major impact on deciding which brands are displayed on
supermarket shelves.

104 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

First, our analysis of the database shows that the awareness
level of local brands (85%) is significantly higher than that of RESULTS OF THE Y&R
international brands (73%), in confirmation of the results DATABASE
from the first phase of interviews. This points to a significant
advantage for local brands; this awareness level might be
related to the number of years that brands have been in the
market.

Second, the analysis of the brand image, based on the 48 dif-

ferent brand attributes available in the database, shows that
the perception of quality is as high for local brands as it is for
international brands (25.3% versus 24.3%), as Table 3 indi-
cates. There is no significant difference between either group
of brands. Note that of the 48 available attributes, quality is
the most important attribute selected by consumers.

Third, the image of trust is significantly stronger for local

brands than for international brands (22.1% versus 17.9%).
This also confirms the findings of the first phase of inter-
views of international marketers. Trust is a key brand equity
element (Aaker 1991; Kapferer 1991); that is, brands exist
because of the trust they convey to consumers.

Fourth, value is also perceived as an important attribute for

local brands, as is indicated by the significantly higher value
rating for local brands (18.8%) than for international brands

Variables Local Brands (%) International Brands (%)

High quality 25.3 24.3
Table 3.
Trustworthy 22.1 17.9*
Comparison of Means on a
Selection of Image Variables
Good value 18.8 16.8*
Simple 18.6 17.2
Down to earth 15.7 14.7*
Friendly 15.4 14.4
Traditional 15.1 12.7*
Trendy 14.0 14.5
Healthy 15.6 11.4*
Original 13.6 13.3
Reliable 22.1 17.9*
Distinct 12.6 12.8
Social 12.5 12.2
Kind 11.7 12.2
Authentic 10.4 10.1
Fun 9.8 11.3*
Sensual 11.2 9.3
Prestigious 6.9 7.4
*Significant difference between international and local brands, p < .05.

Local and International Brands 105

 (16.8%). This might be linked with the fact that prices of
local brands are usually lower than those of international
brands, providing consumers a sense of better value for the
money.

Fifth, local brands are also perceived as more “down to

earth” than international brands. This conveys the idea that
local brands offer a more basic/no frills brand proposition.
The study also indicates that local brands are perceived as
more traditional (15.1%) than international brands (12.7%).
This is quite logical, because local brands are linked more to
local traditions and local cultures than international brands
are.

Sixth, the results also indicate that local brands (22.1%) ben-
efit more from a significantly stronger image of reliability
than do international brands (17.9%). This attribute is
closely correlated in the database with the trustworthy attrib-
ute, confirming this strong advantage for local brands. The
results also indicate that there is no significant difference
between the perception of prestige for international brands
(7.4%) and that for local brands (6.9%). The relatively low
level of this attribute for both international and local brands
is surprising in the case of international brands, as this was
not identified in previous research on global brands (Holt,
Quelch, and Taylor 2003; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden
2003).

The database also provides information on the usage of local

and international brands. The results show higher ratings for
local brands (42.9%) than for international brands (37.4%),
as Table 4 indicates. Note that the usage intention figures
indicate a different pattern; ratings are slightly higher for
international brands (47.5%) than for local brands (46.0%).
This might indicate that consumers are attracted to interna-
tional brands but that, in reality, they prefer to purchase local
brands. The identified value advantage of local brands could
explain the difference between usage and usage intention. A
relatively lower value rating for international brands could
keep people from buying the brands they would have liked
to buy.

We also conducted a factor analysis on the 48 image vari-

ables and identified 9 factors. To evaluate the reasons con-
sumers use local brands, we performed a regression analysis
with usage as the dependant variable; this produced a signif-

Variables Local Brands (%) International Brands (%)

Table 4. Usage 42.9 37.4*
Comparison of Usage and Usage intention 46.0 47.5
Usage Intention
*Significant difference between international and local brands, p < .05.

106 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

icant percentage of explained variance (76.9%). Two factors,
trust and basic/no frills, interacted significantly with the
indicator variables (local brand and international brand), at a
significance level of 5%. This confirms that consumers per-
ceive local brands to be more trustworthy and to offer a more
basic/no-frills brand proposition than international brands.

For an international company, international and global

brands provide many indisputable advantages. In the current CONCLUSION AND
context of market globalization, it is sensible for firms to MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
accelerate the development of these power brands. Because
of their size, international and global brands create barriers
to entry, benefit from having a unique image worldwide, and
generate important economies of scale that are financially
attractive.

However, application of a strong global marketing approach

can create risks that international marketers must consider
(Schuiling 2001). International companies usually use cen-
tralized strategies to develop their powerful global brands.
Therefore, such companies have less intimate relationships
with local markets and take a long time to react to problems
when they arise. For example, Coca-Cola changed its strategy
when it found that its structure had become too cumbersome
and that it was insensitive to local markets. In 2000, the com-
pany decided to return to a more multidomestic marketing
approach and to give more freedom to local subsidiaries.
Local teams are now permitted to develop advertising to
local consumers and, on the basis of local knowledge, can
even launch new local brands. Thus, over the past two years,
local subsidiaries have launched many local brand
initiatives.

Even P&G, the strong advocate of global marketing, was

forced to understand the limits of its strategy. As we men-
tioned previously, in 2000 in Belgium, P&G tried to replace
the leading local and very profitable detergent Dash brand
with the European-wide Ariel brand. For nine months, P&G
discontinued advertising Dash, an inconceivable move for
this type of business. In the wake of this, because P&G’s
results in the detergent category were so poor, it was forced
to renew marketing support for Dash. It also reopened some
local subsidiaries that it had closed to reduce costs. Because
P&G had put distance between itself and the local con-
sumers, its business suffered. We recommend that interna-
tional firms maintain close contact with the realities of the
local market by communicating with local experts who know
local consumers, even if there is an extra cost element asso-
ciated with doing so.

We have also shown that, in addition to international brands,

local brands can offer strategic advantages that international

Local and International Brands 107

 marketers should consider. Local brands provide firms
greater strategic flexibility in many marketing areas. First,
they offer a product that can better respond to the specific
needs of local consumers. This is in contrast to international
brands that must deliver a standardized product to satisfy
the largest possible number of consumers. Firms can select
the correct positioning for a specific market, taking existing
local and international competitors into account. They can
adopt specific pricing without being influenced by a global
pricing strategy. They can also introduce new markets
quickly and with minimum marketing investment through
the acquisition of a successful local brand.

Second, local brands can help minimize the risk represented

by a portfolio that contains a majority of international
brands. We believe that academics and practitioners have not
sufficiently emphasized the need for risk management in this
situation. Therefore, we recommend that international mar-
keters encourage the development of international brand
portfolios that combine a balanced number of both strong
local and international brands.

Our exploratory research on the Y&R database indicates that

local brands benefit from strong brand equity. In particular,
local brands benefit from higher consumer awareness than
international brands do, and they enjoy a strong brand
image. They benefit not only from a good quality image but
also from a better value and trust perception than interna-
tional brands do. We find that trust is an important advan-
tage for local brands, because it provides a unique relation-
ship with consumers that takes years to develop; it is not
linked to any particular level of investment. It is doubtful
that an international brand could reproduce such a unique
relationship with consumers, even after substantial invest-
ment in marketing. Thus, we recommend that international
marketers leverage the advantage of trust that local brands
have succeeded in building with local consumers.

At a time when product differentiation is more difficult to

achieve, strong brands are essential differentiating assets.
International firms should take into account that owning
strong local brand franchises represents a key long-term
asset. Therefore, we recommend that companies not elimi-
nate local brands on the basis of short-term financial consid-
erations but that they consider the substantial long-term
advantage of owning brands with strong equity, even at the
local level.

In support of this recommendation, recent examples illus-

trate that some multinational firms have begun to recognize
the virtues of local brands. Through its actions, Unilever has
acknowledged that trust is essential to develop brands in the

108 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

food sector. In its ice cream business, Unilever has kept the
best-known local brand names, such as Miko in France,
Wall’s in the United Kingdom, and Agnesi in Italy, while
globalizing logos, products, and new concepts, such as Mag-
num and Solero. Even in the traditionally globalized cos-
metic business, L’Oréal has discovered that local brands have
the power to retain clients. In globalizing the U.S. May-
belline brand, L’Oréal has pursued a double-branding strat-
egy, in which Maybelline is the host brand and another name
is the local brand. For example, the company markets
Gemey-Maybelline in France and Jade-Maybelline in
Germany.

We also recommend that in their strategies, international

firms acknowledge the recent trends toward more regional-
ism in the different parts of the world, including Europe, and
account for the effects of the antiglobalization movement. It
might be critical for international firms to offer more diver-
sity in their brand portfolio to avoid overloading consumers
with the same international brands in all categories every-
where. This is another argument for a company brand portfo-
lio to maintain a balance of both strong local and interna-
tional brands.

Finally, to create a source of new ideas, international compa-

nies should encourage the development of new local brands.
As we mentioned previously, Coca-Cola has granted local
teams the right to develop new local brands, which is a pow-
erful way to generate new ideas. These new local brands
could be transformed into successful international brands at
a later point. In addition, firms’ providing local marketing
teams the opportunity to build local brands has an impact on
the teams’ motivation and skill level. Thus, we recommend
that international marketers encourage local teams to
develop new local brands as a source of new ideas.

In summary, if international companies eliminate strong

local brands, they might be throwing away opportunities.
Strong local brands represent strategic advantages that are
worth consideration, and they enjoy strong brand franchises
that are real assets for any company. When brands are elimi-
nated from their market, it is difficult to relaunch them suc-
cessfully. Therefore, there are many reasons to encourage the
development of brand portfolios that contain a balanced mix
of strong local and international brands.

Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on

the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press. REFERENCES
——— and Erich Joachimsthaler (1999), “The Lure of Global
Branding,” Harvard Business Review, 77 (November–December),
137–44.

Local and International Brands 109

 Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra
(1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, North
America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture,”
Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87.
Bartlett, Christopher A. and Sumantra Ghoshal (1986), “Tap Your
Subsidiaries for Global Reach,” Harvard Business Review, 64
(November–December), 87–94.
Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana Alden, Jan-Benedict
E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000), “Effects of Brand
Local and Non Local Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Develop-
ing Countries,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95.
Bilkey, Warren J. and Erik Nes (1982), “Country of Origin Effects on
Product Evaluation,” Journal of International Business Studies, 8
(1), 89–99.
Boddewyn, Jean J., Robin Soehl, and Jacques Picard (1986), “Stan-
dardization in International Marketing: Is Ted Levitt in Fact
Right?” Business Horizons, 29 (November–December), 68–75.
Buzzell, Robert D. (1968), “Can You Standardize Multinational
Marketing?” Harvard Business Review, 46 (November–
December), 102–113.
Craig, Samuel C. and Susan P. Douglas (2000), “Configural Advan-
tage in Global Markets,” Journal of International Marketing, 8
(1), 6–21.
De Chernatony, Leslie, Chris Halliburton, and Ratna Bernarth
(1995), “International Branding: Demand or Supply Driven
Opportunity?” International Marketing Review, 12 (2), 9–21.
De Mooij, Marieke (1998), Global Marketing and Advertising.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Douglas, Susan P., Samuel C. Craig, and Edwin J. Nijssen (2001),
“Integrating Branding Strategy Across Markets: Building Interna-
tional Brand Architecture,” Journal of International Marketing, 9
(2), 97–114.
——— and Yoram Wind (1987), “The Myth of Globalization,”
Columbia Journal of World Business, 22 (Winter), 19–29.
Francis, June N.P., Janet P.Y. Lam, and Jan Walls (2002), “The
Impact of Linguistic Differences on International Brand Name
Standardization: A Comparison of English and Chinese Brand
Names of Fortune-500 Companies,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 10 (1), 98–116.
Ger, Guliz (1999), “Localizing in the Global Village: Local Firms
Competing in Global Markets,” California Management Review,
41, 64–84.
Halliburton, Chris and Reinhard Hünerberg (1993), “Pan-European
Marketing: Myth or Reality?” Journal of International Marketing,
1 (3), 243–49.
Han, C. Min (1989), “Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct?”
Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 222–29.
——— and Vern Terpstra (1988), “Country of Origin Effects for Uni-
National and Bi-National Products,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 19 (Summer), 235–55.

110 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer

Hassan, Salah S. and Lea Pravel Katsanis (1991), “Identification of
Global Consumer Segments: A Behavioural Framework,” Journal THE AUTHORS
of International Consumer Marketing, 3 (2), 11–29.
Heslop, Louise A. and Nicolas Papadopoulos (1993), “But Who Isabelle Schuiling is a professor,
Knows Where or When: Reflections on the Images of Countries School of Management,
and Their Products,” in Product-Country Images: Impact and University of Louvain, Belgium
Role in International Marketing, N. Papadopoulos and L. Heslop, (e-mail: [email protected].
eds. New York: International Business Press (Haworth), 39–75. be).
Holt, Douglas, John Quelch, and Earl Taylor (2003), “Managing the
Transnational Brand: How Global Perceptions Drive Value,” Jean-Noël Kapferer is a
working paper, Harvard Business School. professor, HEC School of
Hong, Sung-Tai and Robert S. Wyer (1989), “Effects of Country-of- Management, Paris (e-mail:
Origin and Product-Attribute Information Processing Perspec- [email protected]).
tives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 175–87.
Huszagh, Sandra, Richard J. Fox, and Ellen Day (1986), “Global
Marketing: An Empirical Investigation,” Columbia Journal of ACKNOWLEDGMENT
World Business, 21 (4), 31–44.
Jain, Subhash C. (1989), “Standardization of International Market- The authors thank Young & Rubicam,
ing Strategy: Some Research Hypothesis,” Journal of Marketing, and in particular Jim Williams, for
53 (January), 70–79. providing access to its worldwide
database.
Johansson, Johny K., Susan P. Douglas, and Ikujiro Nonaka (1985),
“Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on Product Evalua-
tions: A New Methodological Perspective,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 5 (August), 175–87.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël (1991), Strategic Brand Management. New
York: The Free Press.
——— (1992), “How Global Are Global Brands?” in ESOMAR Con-
ference Proceedings: The Challenge of Branding Today and in
the Future. Brussels, Belgium: ESOMAR, 199–215.
——— (2000), “In Defense of Local Brands,” Market Leader, 9
(Summer), 39–42.
——— (2002), “Is There Really No Hope for Local Brands?” The
Journal of Brand Management, 9 (January), 48–54.
——— (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management. London and
New York: Kogan Page.
Kaynak, Erdener and S. Tamer Cavusgil (1983), “Consumer Atti-
tudes Towards Products of Foreign Origin: Do They Vary Across
Product Classes?” International Journal of Advertising, 2 (1),
147–57.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets,” Harvard
Business Review, 61 (May–June), 92–108.
Nagashima, Akira (1977), “A Comparative ‘Made in’ Product Image
Survey Among Japanese Businessmen,” Journal of Marketing, 41
(Summer), 95–100.
Onkvisit, Sak and John J. Shaw (1989), “The International Dimen-
sion of Branding: Strategic Considerations and Decisions,” Inter-
national Marketing Review, 6 (3), 22–34.

Local and International Brands 111

 Porter, Michael E. (1986), “The Strategic Role of International Mar-
keting,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (Spring) 17–21.
Quelch, John A. and Edward J. Hoff (1986), “Customizing Global
Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, 64 (May–June), 59–68.
Samiee, Saeed (1994), “Customer Evaluation of Products in a
Global Market,” Journal of International Business Studies, (3rd
Quarter), 579–604.
Schlosser, Anne-Marie (2002), “Marques locales face aux marques
internationales,” paper presented at Congrès du Marketing en
Europe, Paris (June 25–26).
Schooler, Robert (1971), “Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Mar-
keting of Foreign Goods in the US,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 2 (1), 71–81.
Schuiling, Isabelle (2001), “Think Local, Act Local: Is it Time to
Slow Down the Accelerated Move to Global Marketing?” Euro-
pean Business Forum, 5 (Spring), 68–70.
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “Consumer Ethno-
centrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280–89.
Shocker, Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava, and Robert W. Ruekert
(1994), “Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Manage-
ment: An Introduction to the Special Issue,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 31 (May), 149–58.
Sorenson, Ralph Z. and Ulrich E. Wiechmann (1975), “How Multi-
nationals View Marketing Standardization,” Harvard Business
Review, 53 (May–June), 38–137.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden
(2003), “How Perceived Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Jour-
nal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65.
Terpstra, Vern (1987), “The Evolution of International Marketing,”
International Marketing Review, 4 (Summer), 47–59.
Wind, Yoram (1986), “The Myth of Globalization,” Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing, 3 (Spring), 23–26.
Wolfe, Alan (1991), “The Single European Market: National of
Euro-Brands,” International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), 49–
58.
Zhang, Shi and Bernd H. Schimitt (2001), “Creating Local Brands
in Multilingual International Markets,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 38 (August), 313–25.

112 Isabelle Schuiling and Jean-Noël Kapferer