A recent post by David Kiley on Brand New Day raised an interesting question quite apart from the basic issue of whether it was a good idea for General Motors to cut down on its roster of nameplates. (To read the post, titled “GM Pondering Brand Cuts,” click here.) The question is, would Buick’s success in China be adversely affected if the brand were no longer sold in the United States? David suggests that Buick would do just fine in China and I agree. What’s more, I have some data to support that view.

As David implies in his post, not all brands need to be global. In fact, an analysis of BrandZ data suggests that local brands are better than global ones at creating strong attitudinal bonds with their customers. On average, 35 percent more people are Bonded to local brands. This suggests that local brands are far more resilient to competitive pressures and more likely to be able to support a price premium.

Why are global brands weaker overall? Because as these brands move out from their countries of origin, they must recreate in every new market the (presumably) strong bond that they had with the consumers in their home market. This becomes more and more difficult as the brand encounters consumers with differing needs, wants and desires. Strong global brands usually need to adapt both their offering and communication in order to be successful.

Lacking the ability to adapt effectively, many brands would be better off if they did not aspire to be global players, or if they accepted the need to be regionally differentiated. Our data certainly does not suggest any need for global consistency when it comes to building a strong global brand. A strong global brand is often composed of a series of strong local interpretations of a global concept.

The example I particularly enjoy is that of Cadbury’s Bournvita, a chocolate malted drink, typically prepared with milk and consumed hot. When I worked at Cadbury many years ago, the brand was marketed in the U.K. as an aid to a good night’s sleep. In Nigeria, however, it was the beverage equivalent of Viagra. In India, it helped your kids grow up smart.

Did it matter that such different positionings existed in different countries? I doubt it. A Nigerian visiting the U.K. would not change his view of the brand; he would simply find his belief about the Brits and sex confirmed. (That said, times change. Apparently Britain has recently been ranked the most promiscuous of Western nations.  Click here for article. If Bournvita had previously adopted the Nigerian brand positioning, perhaps it would not have been discontinued in the U.K. this year.)

Having earlier suggested that local brands often have a home-field advantage, brands like Bournvita are the exceptions that prove the rule. Occasionally a brand may lose its mojo in its country of origin but retain it elsewhere.

Such is the case with Buick. Thanks to GM’s decision to enter the Chinese market early, Buick has become an aspirational brand there. GM has successfully capitalized on its global capabilities, but applied them to suit Chinese needs with local design and production. The contrast with the brand’s image in the U.S. could not be greater. In China, 49 percent of car buyers believe that Buick is setting the trends for the car category. Only 15 percent share that view in the United States.

So would it hurt Buick if the brand were no longer sold in the U.S.? From a brand viewpoint, I suppose it might even provide a very marginal boost to perceptions of the brand in China, because the few Chinese who visited the U.S. would not be puzzled as to why U.S. consumers seem to disdain the brand. From a business viewpoint it might allow GM to focus its resources on retaining its lead in China.

So what do you think of my analysis? And why do so many brands aspire to be global when they could be strong (and potentially more profitable) local players? What other brands have lost their mojo at home but remained strong abroad? Please share your ideas.

 Email This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, December 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm and is filed under Brands. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page