on global branding [1of2]

the impact of culture and language on marketing


In a conversation about the impact of varying cultures and languages on a marketing process, this particular case study demonstrates breakdown in three particular people, all involve our protagonist Natasha Singh. That the movie tie-in is both global AND market specific (running with the lead of the trio in each of the three markets associated with that market) is a quintessentially global marketing opportunity. Ms. Singh did not communicate this as effectively or as fully as she both could and should have (to anyone).

Ms. Singh’s interaction with Vasylko Mazur has flaws on a variety of levels. Although Natasha has freed herself from the second-class status of being a woman by proving herself on the battleground of business (for rising to the stature that she has, at this level, if there are any gender differences they are greatly diminished; and professionally should be ignored). However, the class system of India is more closely associated with its historic caste system (not so much gender or minority, as in the West). For her part, Ms. Singh has arrived. Mr. Mazur, however, being Ukrainian, may be susceptible to gender bias (other biases for this part of the world would include ethnic biases. Although doubtful, this may also be applicable). Despite the Orange Revolution, only Belarus comes as close (from across the former satellites) to being a part of what could be called a somewhat shared culture with Russia. In addition, while Hofstede remains silent on Russia and its “stepsiblings”, one can be assured that machismo (though not as outwardly or as often expressed as across the northern rim of the Mediterranean) simmers underneath. Eastern Europeans, like their Russian cousins, are a proud and strong people. We find Ms. Singh and Mr. Mazur meeting again across time with some unresolved business. How much of this is associated with the symbolism of how each other literally appear cannot be known, though it would not be impossible that some of this baggage may be present. Of itself, there are multicultural sensibilities at play here that may have been ignored for too long.

Vasylko Mazur showed channel disconnect when he said, “We are in the beauty business, not the movie business." This would have been the perfect opportunity, had either of the two been informed enough in their positions to recognize it, to notice that headquarters offers the vision while the regional office customizes the fit. All four of our subject matter experts spoke to this concern in their own way. Ms. Singh did not frame her argument with Vasylko effectively; it is not a one or the other consideration.

As for Johnson, Ms. Singh’s boss in LA, he did not get it either. Consequently, not only was he unable to reframe the argument, he also was unable to be the mentor he needed to be. When he stated, "We will save costs by building brands through global strategies and allowing local initiatives to drive sales," however, it seems that he did get it; but the insight came and went so fast we will never know. Our Stanford University expert went further by suggesting a kind of substructure be in place. Such a structure would likely address the goals he spoke of, as well as the positioning, communication, packaging, and even pricing that the Unilever expert spoke. Our Temple University expert spoke of this as identifying a core line (with customized down lines at the regional level). Our Pepsi expert said it this way, “Singh should identify the nonnegotiable areas where global consistency will be the rule: name and look, positioning, a base of global colors, and quality standards. Other areas, such as price and pack strategy, selection of local colors, and channel strategy, should be the responsibility of managers in the field.” The bottom line is the standard is set at the top.