brand debate | local and global identities

Should a brand change logos or identities to suit regional tastes or languages?

Across the nations of the world, mindsets remain different. Brazilians, Americans, Germans, and Chinese do not think alike! There is no 'one size fits all' in branding and each market should absolutely develop its own strategy.

Pete O'Keefe - October 31, 2003

The world is almost thinking alike, thanks to globalisation. Universal branding is the key to the Branding in a globalised economy. If a Brand caters to all cultures....then we can call it an Universal Brand.

Venkatesh P., Student - November 3, 2003

Over the past decade, debates have flared over the supposed supremacy of global brands and the inadequacy of (multi-)local brands. This viewpoint is incorrect and each individual global or international brand has specific opportunities and limitations when it comes to its standardisation or localisation. Only a thorough understanding of a variety of factors that influence brands in their global and local contexts helps determine the best course for them.

Sicco van Gelder, Author of Global Brand Strategy - Unlocking Brand Potential Across Countries, Cultures & Markets (Kogan Page, 2003), Brand Meta - November 3, 2003

We are all the same, but not exactly. We have all been grown in different conditions and environment, both in our families, and in our countries, nature, etc. And so, we are different, less or more. And, global or not, the brand must fit all these. Even the most global brands "know" it.

Fanny Koleva - November 3, 2003

I would like to put as an example Banamex which is the Mexican Brand for Citigroup. Banamex has been positioned for many many years as the best brand for mexican Banks. After the integration with Citigroup, it was decided to mantain only in Mexico it´s national brand "Banamex" and it has been a success. The Citigroup image has been maintained and implemented but without loosing the Mexican Banamex identity.

Iliana Zúñiga Miranda, Internet Manager, BANAMEX - November 3, 2003

The answer is a mixture of the two, which is why the results of the survey are fairly even. A global brand has one set of values to communicate to the whole world, which makes it unique from other global brands. An inconsistent appearance dilutes this message and can confuse the receiver. One vision, one voice – one logo. Imagine an international tour operator who would have a different logo for all its countries in the same hotel reception! On the other hand, the brand can be tailored to its respective country, using flexible elements, e.g. tone of voice, marketing strategy, PR, imagery, etc which is sympathetic to the local market.

Jim Campbell, Senior Designer, Deekeling Identity & Change - November 3, 2003

Adapt identity to language, local priorities for relevance. Do not fractionate "story", merely select appropriate "lead" .

suzan k. couch, president, cb communication inc. - November 3, 2003

Several global studies irrefutably show that although cultural differences exist, there are also human universal truths relevant across geographic and cultural boundaries. That fact, coupled with the increased importance of globalization, makes centrally managed branding the best possible option; however, the central brand strategy unit must accept and reconcile input from all the countries and make tactical adjustments to avoid alienating the local audiences, while still addressing the highest common denominators.

Julio C. Arrieta, Global VP Marketing, NEORIS - November 3, 2003

Brands are signals and wherever a consumer goes, he should be able to recognize the signals. If a signal is always changing, isn't it true that the brand loses its "referencial" status?

Claudia Martinez - November 3, 2003

In support of: one world, one brand.

The essence or core of a brand needs to be as pure, focussed and as simple as possible. It must have one meaning that upon consistent repetition gains recognition and value over time.

The logo, the symbol, the brand name (word) must not change.

However the tagline or associated messages and promotional activity can be and often should be localized for language and cultural differences.

In fact advertising and promotional messages should change over time provided the core brand identity and brand message remain fixed and consistent.

Preserve the core at all costs, change everything else.

We must also not forget that people buy from people - usually local.

The "brand" is there to provide credibility, trust, security and to help employees give the brand “life” and deliver on the brand promise.

While the people at the coalface and local companies they work for will certainly have localised marketing systems, the one global brand is there as the guiding light and quality control mechanism to ensure that the consumer consistently receives the expected service or product experience.

And for a brand to be successful long term, more and more needs to be consistent around the world.

David Vaassen, brand asset management guru, e-see.com - November 3, 2003

I believe in one world, one brand. The challange is to take the ownable parts of the brand's architecture, and bring those equities to "life" in a consumer relevant way at the local market-level. It's not only possible--it's been done. One way is to strategically align your brand with something relevant in the local market. Forming strategic alliance partnerships in the local market connect your brand equities with similar brand equities held by the partner. Together, the pairing brings greater to value to the consumer in a relevant local market way.

Coca-Cola, by example, is all about fun with family and friends--creating memorable moments.

Mary Ann Grillo-Ellmo, Adjunct Professor, Webster University, St. Louis, MO - November 3, 2003

change of logos no!!!! whta can be changed should be the approach towards the people so as to make them feel that the brand producers really know their customers and care for them.

soare oana, master student, KU Leuven - November 3, 2003

One brand platform. Different executions. American, Asian and Europeans customers Minds are different. A brand does exist into customer mind...A stong brand should respect its core values to be true to isst identity and at the same time adapt to different customers culture> That is why brand management is so difficult and challenging

Dr Tocquer, MBA sService marketing & Technology. Asian Institute of Technology - November 3, 2003

A lot of time, brands that flourish in countries other than their own has a lot to do with the fact that they maintain the same logo and same identity across the world. This works since most global brands are aspirational. May it be a BMW car sold in India or a Rolex watch sold in Sinapore, people want to see the same thing thats offered to anyone else in this world. Lets face it, the world is growing smaller day by day, differentiation in identity will only lead to an identity crisis

Vivek Prabhakar, Marketing Manager, Platinum Guild International - November 4, 2003

Of course the one brand approach is ideal (albeit tweaked within fixed parameters to account for local conditions). The economies and synergies are obvious.

That said, the situation is not always so simple. In a world where stakeholders are increasingly nervous about even short lived downturns, and in which the heritage of some brands is seen as part of national character, ditching a well loved local brand in favour of a neutral or even negatively perceived 'take-over' brand can be very damaging. For sure, it's possible to mitigate this damage in the mid to long term, but only if your gamble that the stakeholders will sit tight and wait for the corner to be turned pays off. The question is, how do you evaluate the odds?

Ian Louden, Senior Consultant, FutureBrand - November 4, 2003

Branding should balance globalization and regionalization (local). Global brands enjoy lots of benefits (economies of scale...) and regional brands have high awareness and high equity locally but also a very reduced market. So balance should be achieved, sometimes in very subtle changes.

Michel Kattan, Sr Brand Manager, Reckitt Benckiser - November 4, 2003

Globalisation vs. localisation of the brand strategy is not a clear-cut decision. It will depend on variety of culture, consumer and product factors. However we should not underestimate the persistance of local cultures under the pressures of globalisation. Japan provides an execellent example of one culture's resistance to the forces of modernisation and localisation. Despite being one of the wealthiest and technologically advanced societies in the world, research shows that Japan has retained a lot of its traditional values. We can expect the persistance of the local values to be even stronger in the majority of world's cultures which are less modern than Japan. I think this example illustrates that a single global brand strategy may be premature in certain cultures, for certain products and for certain consumers.

Alexander Jakubanecs, Ph.D. Candidate, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration - November 4, 2003

I think there are very few industries that can truly 'go global'. While global consistency in quality and support should be a driving force for all companies, equating that to one graphical image is not necessarily the same. Ensuring the customer experience is equally superior in every market is a better use of funds than spending millions to ensure a logo suits all cultures and needs.

Ken Stockman, Senior Manager, Fannie Mae - November 4, 2003

I think people, some people, are forgetting that brands are not intrinsic identities; that is, they only exist to differentiate and ultimately to sell. Having said that, the argument for or against 'Globalization' of brands should not center around the sheer volume of brands; single or multiple brands. Only the markets will define the necessity of the volume of brands in a particular category. Having one brand may seem like an optimal strategy, for the holding company, it does not matter how many brands it must operate as long as there is a core strategy that governs the internal management and processes of the total organization. Think of it like a branded retail store...once the customer is in the store, the brands/product names on the products in the store does not really matter. It is up to the store to manage the customer relationship. Global entities are nothing but retail entities. Its holdings (brands) are nothing but items on their shelves...they have to define their market and manage the customer relationship.

Moral of the story: Brand owners are responsible for core strategy alignment among all of its holdings. More than number of brands, integration strategy and process alignment at acquisition is much more critical. For everything else, capitalism has a funny way of self-equalizing the volume of brands it can handle. Happy shopping!

BrandMasterFlex - November 5, 2003

The concept of a global brand has been the subject of lively debate in recent times. A brand should have one identity which must be consistent worldwide. Tailoring a brand for each market dilutes the impact that a brand can have on consumers and creates inconsistency. Furthermore, it is costly to change your brand profile and campaign for each target market. In this day and age of globalization a brand must have the capability to cross borders without compromising its identity. What is important is that the brand aligns itself with things indigenous in the various target markets and this would be reflected in its advertising and promotion. In this way, the brand maintains the core of its identity while creating the feeling amongst consumers that the brand respects the culture and values of their home country. Verizon Wireless positions itself as a network that can provide signal in places where other mobile service providers fail, Mercedes signifies success; Coca Cola is synonymous with fitting in, having fun, living in the fast lane. These are just some of the identities that have been created by brands worldwide. And these identities must continue to prevail so that the brand can live on in the minds of consumers.

Jameela Kassim, Marketing Officer, Life of Jamaica - November 5, 2003

One issue that is hardly ever discussed is the transliteration of the brand name on the logo.

Is this a recommendable practice?

Any comments/ideas?

Jose Alvarado - November 5, 2003

Any brand has a spectrum wherein it can move. Also there has to be a common thread running through whatever the brand does. Regaining that common thread the regionalisation is possible e g."thanda matlab coca cola". The culture of the brand should remain the same though the tone, manner and style can vary according to the need of the region.

Amita, Marketing Officer, The Times of India group. - November 7, 2003

I think it is very common for brand to suit local market. there is only one problem:IF the brand consistant on one core . As i know, coca-cola just changed its logo this year, and IN china ,it also changed the style of its chinese. So,even the coca-cola has to customize itself according to local market.

Anonymous - November 7, 2003

The challenge facing organisations is to acheive both the benefits of standardisation and maintain local responsiveness with their brands. I don't believe that its an "either/or" situation.

Gordon Graham, Business Trainer, Orxil.com - November 9, 2003

In the era of globalization, cultural boundries become more obscure where consumers receive multiple ad exposures via various broadcast and print media. Hence, a brand should retain its core values and personality to retain consistency. However, to cater to diverse culture, a brand can tweak it's peripheral meanings while yet retaining it's core values. This is in analogy to the social identity theory vs. personal identity theory.

Lau Kong Cheen, Phd candidate, Curtin Business School - November 10, 2003

Originally from England, I now live in Australia. It has been interesting seeing how the Australian market embraces the GM brand Holden whilst the UK has Vauxhall to call its own. The same cars (essentially) from the same mass producer yet each uniquely attuned to its individual market.

Is this a better approach than Sony for example -- the same brand the world over -- who can say? All I can attest to is an appreciation that over here certain brands are better respected than in the UK despite the products being identical. If the public psyche is different then the brand perception needs to be tailored too.

Kevin Blanc, Head of Creative Services, dtb! - November 10, 2003

With the exception of super brands such as Coke, a global brand must have tribal or localised approaches. This allows it to take a role in society, deal with localised issues, and hence bring great value to that particular community and the worth of the brand overall. Don’t forget that, with the exception of well-entrenched, older, brands, the brand itself is also at various phases of maturity and strength in various markets at any given time. This is not to say a brand can't have an overarching dominant identity and philosophy for the global market, but it must have its own approach and personality in each market to best communicate said identity and philosophy.

Michael Locke, PR Manager, Dyson (ANZ) - November 10, 2003

Brand direction ought to be driven by market dynamics. We live in a world in which social and behavioral convergence is co-existing with divergence. And as we seem to converge, our differences become more apparent as evidenced in many regions. And true enough, incidences of divergence is shaped by and large by geopolitical events. Whilst it makes economic sense to globalize a brand, the opposite bears merit as well. For or otherwise, any brand direction must be based on market needs...unless one is able to articulate the brand and slot it into a 'universal appeal' gap.

Raghunath, Marketing Coach, Brand Marketing Mastermind - November 10, 2003

The challenge is to find the right balance between global and local.

A well founded brand architecture (ie based on in-depth market and consumer understanding worldwide) is key as it establishes boundaries for local executions that meet local needs while being consistent with the brand promise, scope, competencies, character and symbols.

Fabio Cury, Broadband Marketing Manager, Telefónica Brasil - November 10, 2003

The problem is simple, from city to city you have the same bland products, the same bland clothes, the same bland stores. We have sameness and not greatness. Is blandness replacing brands? The lowest common denominator rules the world. Perceived quality and inventiveness are replaced by low cost production and humongous profits for shareholders as a priority. Maybe global brands have outlived their purpose.

Jean-Leon Bouchenoire, Principal, GlobalBrandOne - November 11, 2003

Well, the answer is not as 'black' or 'white' as it looks. The truth is somewhere in between. A brand is a fusion between science and poetry. The principles of branding remain the same but the environment changes. That is precisely why companies have brand managers in local markets. It should be their decision whether to localise the brand or not. And, to what extent? Remember, sometimes localisation can take away the whole aura of the brand – Try selling Burberry with a local Japanese branding and positioning with the same checks in Japan and you would know what I mean. On the other hand, try selling a Ford Fiesta hatchback, without making it a customised saloon for India (Ikon) and you would realize the need for localisation.

Vish Dhamija, European Retail Management - November 11, 2003

A paradox of globalisation is that it fuels localisation. It happens in politics, culture and branding.

The European Union grows in size and influence and different national and regional groups like the Scots or the Basques push for greater independence within it. English is more and more the world’s lingua franca but Singaporeans, Australians, African Americans and many other groups develop their own distinctive versions of it. Starbucks appeals to huge numbers of coffee drinkers around the world and in the process revived café culture in many countries where it had all but disappeared. This in turn has led to renewed love among coffee connoisseurs for Starbuck’s competitors: small independent coffee shops and traditional European brands like Segafredo.

The explanation for the paradox is that people use politics, language and brands to mark their group identity. Some people associate with global tribes, others with local ones: Coca Cola or Qibla cola, Budweiser or Budweiser Budvar. So there’ll always be a place for global brands, for local brands and for global brands with a little local flavour.

Angus Fraser, Partner, 42 brand development - November 11, 2003

Local and Global

Rather than a definitive local or global response we need to consider the 'pull' and 'push' factors that are dynamic and whose influence is determined by a constant dialogue between consumer and the corporation.

'Pull' factors include a need to control a corporation's perception, maintain consistency and costs. Efficiency is high and innovations , once approved, can be adopted quickly. The Hollywood cinema industry offers a high quality global product with limited local differentiation (sub-titles where necessary).

However, by reducing the organisations contact 'surface area' with customers an organisation is in danger of losing touch and appearing arrogant; possible examples of this include Pepsi who is using the slogan 'Come alive with Pepsi' in China were informed this translates as 'Pepsi raises relatives from the dead'.

'Push Factors' include a need to acknowledge local diversity, maintain customer contact and respond quickly to changes. Mercedes cars are seen as a luxury brand in the UK whilst they remain a reliable workhorse of the German taxi driver.

Bottom line, what works works.

Steve Geary, content manager, rs components - November 12, 2003

This kind of turgid "debate" indicates the increasing irrelevance of brand consultancies and the like. The problem is not really a problem at all - common sense dictating, to the non-Eurocentric thinker, the answer to be a practical mix of local and global thinking in order to yield a return on marketing activities. Ho-hum, more scattered, undisciplined quasi-debate from an industry that is superficially profound while essentially meaningless.

Nasanieru Rou - November 12, 2003

There is always the danger of the "one size fits all" approach. We need to be careful of this approach, because different markets have different needs or aspirational cues. The identity of the brand should not change, however the communication or activation toward the consumer or customer needs to be tailor made to fit the particular needs of that consumer or potential consumer. For example, the Levi's brand might communicate sexyness differently to a consumer in South Africa versus a consumer in a Muslim country, and we need to be careful of what might be offensive to other consumers. Brands such as Cocal Cola, Nike, Levis, BMW, Nokia, IBM, Windows, VW, SMIRNOFF etc, their logos will remain consistent all over, however the needs of their consumers all over differ, and a good brand manager will ensure that whatever is communicated to the consumers is relevant and appealing to those consumers, and that particular needs of those consumers are met.

At the end of the day, we need to be able to differentiate between brand identity & communication objectives. Brand identity will consist of things such as logos/ badge, colours etc, and these can be consistent throughout. However, communication/ messaging objectives will be based on the kind of consumers we are communicating to. These can differ from region to region, depending on the overall business/ brand objectives. Hence we need to be careful when selecting brand ambbasadors to endorse a brand.

Vuyisile Mzozoyana, Senior Project Manager, Octagon - November 14, 2003

Many strong brands have simple messages which are universal truths. Coca-Cola has proven that its brand can work in markets from Atlanta to Timbuktu. Obviously there is room for global brands if a brand can create a universal position, a position which only requires one to be human to understand.

The alternative is to create brands for cultural groups or specific cultures. For example, Vodafone is a brand which reaches most all Europeans. It crosses cultural barriers, but those barriers are shrinking with the expansion of the EU.

Some products do not fit into certain cultures. In those cases, it makes sense to do whatever is necessary, including not entering the market. The only way to enter may be to create a brand specific to that group of people using a position that is sensitive to the mores and values present.

There is not a single answer to the question. However, if a brand can create a global identity or positioning, it's my opinion it will be stronger and more profitable than competitor brands which cannot do this.

Looking at soft drinks, you can quickly see that Pepsi, though a strong competitor in the US, is a weak competitor in the global marketplace. Pepsi's positioning is not based upon a universal truth, as is Coca-Cola. The 'next generation' is only understood by Westerners, while 'refreshing' is understood by all human beings who are thirsty.

Bill Abel, Brand Strategist - November 17, 2003

I have just scanned the responses and came across a most entertaining, honest and worrying piece written by Nasanieru Rou 12-Nov-2003.

The point made is quite correct -– the answer isn’t really debatable –- it has an obvious answer. So I questioned the validity of me adding to the debate and instead I thought it might be a good idea to see whether the assertion that this is in fact just ‘more scattered, undisciplined quasi-debate’ holds.

I can report that it is like a bag of Revels -- mixed. Despite the poor topic for debate I would like to highlight a couple of things I felt were neither ‘scattered’ or ‘undisciplined’: Alexander Jakubanecs, 4-Nov-2003 for reminding us about how Japanese culture continues to refuse to be watered down and in fact influences many western forms of media, Brand Master Flex (who is that masked man?) for his thoughts about companies that make branded goods being like retail outlets (my own theory is that brands behave more like media and companies that make branded goods should behave like media owners -– but that’s another story). Thank you to Kevin Blanc, 10-Nov-2003 for illuminating me about Vauxhall Vs Holden in Australia, and to Angus Fraser 11-Nov-2003 for the twist in the Starbucks story, Steve Geary 12-Nov-2003 for the delightful Pepsi faux pas in China and of course everyone else for the Coke story which is a truly inspiring piece of global branding. Finally thank you to Nasanieru Rou for raising the issue which is an important one.

In conclusion I would say this: in amongst some of the laughably obvious ‘views’ there are some nuggets of knowledge and thinking here which save it -– BUT I believe that Brandchannel must come up with more relevant points for debate than this otherwise this forum will rapidly become both irrelevant and devalued -– not great ‘brand’ attributes for a centre of brand thinking excellence.

Mark Hancock, Planning Director, Holy Cow - November 18, 2003

Anyone who says that Branding is some hocus pocus cooked up by consultants (and really i gotta wonder what Holy Cow is, if not a consultancy) is kidding himself.

No one likes to think that branding is a legitimate practice b/c no one wants to think that he is being manipulated.

Unsigned - November 19, 2003

If you're going global, then you've got to plan for it accordingly. You need to be cognizant of local wants, needs and perceptions. See how other global brands in both your sector or otherwise are fairing.

No doubt about it, you need to be locally-sensitive. For example, the then called Federal Express (70s) changed their name because they spent the money to find out what the problem was when other countries weren't users of their product. After extensive research, they found that Federal Express was hard to pronounce in some asian countries and conjured negative feelings of the Federals (politics) in some south American countries; So, they changed their name and visual identity, too, to something snappy, simple, easy-to-read, write and pronouce.: Fedex-with an arrow in it, BTW. This logo and name is consistent regardless of where they are. Their positioning may and should change to address local needs or deficiencies in this realm, but their name is sacred and guess what? They're the world's # one courier company.

In the end, the term we need to see more often is 'glocalization.'

Nicholas di Cuia, Creative Director, Ferrand Communications Inc. - November 19, 2003

Different situations call for different approaches. If the brand values have universal appeal, they can be more effectively used internationally. Brands can be grown more quickly in new markets if they cater to national values exclusively. International brand can enter new mature markets and use their ‘not-from-here’ status to drive quicker uptake. In the end, it’s more resource effective to have one brand over the long-term. Deciding how to enter the market requires attention to the approach.

Aaron Shields, Partner, Brandinstinct - November 20, 2003

Logo & identity change?!!! Both a no and yes. A logo is something which enables people to associate with the brand visually. It stays in touch for each one and hence it shouldn't be changed... Whereas the identity and the positioning can be changed from region to region. Positioning is what matters.

For a Chinese or an Indian, the product could be positioned as an enjoyable product inbuilt with values. Whereas for an American the same product can be positioned towards freedom.

Positioning can change..not the logo. The identity can change not the brand name. In deciding the brand name itself the organization should be clear off as to where its vision for the organization lies. Think local act global is the buzz among corporates. A brand name should be able to be attached to all parts of the world if the company is planning global. eg. kodak. This brand name is easy to pronounce and can be associated with high quality pictures. It holds everywhere. Such brands do not get associated itself to any country..it is a global brand. These brands live for their logo and the mind share in people.

Viswanathan, Student, Bharathidasan Institute of Management - November 20, 2003

The elementary rule of branding is that it should not be confined to regions or any kind of geographical boundaries. Brandind is not a unilateral concept. So if a brand changes its logos to penetrate markets like Vietnam and Nepal, that's quite pardonable. And hey have we forgotten what Coca-cola, the cliche' of brand management did when it re-enterd India in 90's. So evewwn if a brand changes its logo(with certain exceptions like color) but keeps its core valus in tact, it'll still be a success.

amitesh, PG student, Indian institute of technology, Roorkee. - November 22, 2003

On one level, I have to say that I wholly agree with Mark Hancock’s fine dissection of the issue. ('BUT I believe that Brandchannel must come up with more relevant points for debate than this, otherwise this forum will rapidly become both irrelevant and devalued').

But on another, maybe it is possible to argue that although most of the answers given so far have yielded predictable replies, for this fact one must blame those who have answered, and not the question.

Nearly everyone has answered using the ‘why…’ approach ; no-one has approached this is a ‘why NOT’ frame of mind. So WHERE, for example, are the wonderfully contrary ideas that say that it is possible to challenge the status quo? That make the case that a brand that was completely different in each market that it operated in could itself develop a very valuable property (hell, or even each town!)? That suggest that traditional thinking on ‘glocalisation’ (Ugh!!) exists for the entrepreneurial marketeer to challenge?

Maybe we’re all too busy putting challenging thinking into our pitches and presentations. Life’s too competitive to share such stuff perhaps. But let’s not be too critical of Brandchannel -- maybe it’s too much like shooting the messenger?

Matthew Lonsdale, Partner, gospelbranding.com - November 24, 2003

Should a brand change logos or identities to suit regional tastes or tongues?

Should it...yes. Undoubtedly. Any ascertation to the contrary is simply missing the point OF branding.

Branding is a function of marketing that CREATES value where none exists. Certainly we can all agree on that. In absence of having a local brand, Company X enters the market and tries to ploy their brand into your value system. This is the essence of communication strategy. If you don't 'live there' you have to figure out what the market wants and stands for. Then provide it.

In a true brand movement, the 'master brand' would disappear. The local brands would diverge from the regional, and so on. Certainly, having similar brand attributes as honesty, integrity and soul would permeate all levels, but each locality should be serviced by its own brand voice. The closer the voice to the home…the better. I doubt anyone would challenge Jiminy’s influence.

If examples are your preferred tool, here are a few: FOX with their Fox Regional Sports Report is compelling – local and relevant with typical master brand values; the affiliate model (local news vs. network); satellite model - NYU via the London School of Business.

There are a multitude of brands currently operating under this guise, of course. What they have yet to accomplish is to take the ethereal qualities of a brand ... its inner psyche (if you will) and project that which has created the value and mirror it into multiple cultures. Here's a tip: Gangstas aren't cool in Japan. But the transcendental quality of effective intimidation via words and gestures is, it’s called 'face.' Are they the same? Create a pop music icon in Japan without it and you’ll suffer. Give him tattoos and a gold tooth and he’ll simply wither. Show me the brand that embraces this and I'll show you the new frontier. Next stop: BrandFree. Of course, that's just a message.

And a point of order…

Maybe if a little more of this thinking was put into the pitching and presenting of ‘brand’ campaigns and not ‘brand’ bastardization, the vast insolvent ‘branding’ that goes un-checked in the world would finally live up to all the hype.

Jayson L. Truttmann - November 24, 2003

"Brands are promises. So it shouldn't have to change to suit regional tastes or languages. But positioning is the most important thing, more than the logo or identity. It defines the success brand. And for different tastes or cultural backgrounds, the same brand needs to have different appeal. So we can say: "One world, one brand; different countries, different meanings for the same brand."

Lucas COMPAN, CEO, GOL Global Marketing - November 24, 2003

Symbols,signs, or logos are the only thing that speak universal language and are understood worldwide. Brands do not have t change colors, personalities, identities in order to appeal to a new set of target audience. A brand has to be strong enough to be able to attract & appeal to its predefined target market, irrespective of whether the particular set of audience is in U.S.A or U.K. However, its the promotional schemes and launch plans that have to be carefully worked out and thought of that are in line with the regions value systems, etc. Since human traits vary from person to person and have nothing to do with geographical boundaries, human emotions work like that too. While selling yourself to another region all togther the focus should not be "what" to market but "how" to market it.

Mariam Durrani, Product Manager, Berger Road Safety Co. Pvt. Ltd. - November 28, 2003

One world one brand. One brand for each market. Positioning a brand is about positioning an identity based on culture. It does not depend on city or cowntry.

Igor Cunha, Marketing Director, IMC Branding - November 28, 2003

back to debate

RSS

| Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | FAQ