earticle

영어

One of the key issues facing the management of brands today is how to deal with a brand as it stretches across multiple societies and geographies. This is not just a question of management scope (How do we control and monitor the brand?), but of reaching the full potential of a brand in diverse markets. There is often a tension between finding an optimum fit of the brand with local circumstances, and the desire to obtain brand consistency across markets. More often than not, decisions are made on the basis of organizational constructs rather than on the basis of an understanding of the brand and the various internal and external influences on it. This leads to tensions between global and local brand management that can result in power struggles about the ownership of the brand. Instead, global and local brand management need to understand each other's viewpoints on the brand and the resulting need for adaptations, the possibilities for obtaining sustainable competitive advantage, and the opportunities for standardization. In the end, a compelling brand is in the interest of all those affected by it. The first thing that global and local brand management need is a common basis for their brand strategy and planning work. This common basis needs to provide a shared language, definitions, interpretations, assessments, and most importantly a clear understanding of the relationships between the factors that shape a brand in its global and local contexts. The effect that this intensified globalization has had on brands has been spectacular. new brands are seemingly born global, or at the very least experience a quick roll-out from home or lead countries into other markets. Many traditionally local brands are sold, phased out, or face transition to a new regional or global brand nave and subsequent harmonization. Brand portfolios that have been built up through decades of acquisitions are rationalized in order to focus attention and resources on a limited number of strategic brand. Long-established brands have enhanced their dominant positions across the globe, threatening less marketing-savvy local brands, but are also encountering stern opposition from local brands that find ways to fight back. Some of the global brands manage to become local institutions by filling a local role in the societies where they operate, while others dominate their category as global monoliths. A truly new global brand is a rare thing, but accelerating technological, economic, motivational and legal changes are likely to make the development of such brands more likely in future. The advent of the Internet at the end of the last century has shown that this occurs in leaps and bounds. Yet it is also clear that creating such brands is no easy task, and success comes only to those who are able to create something so valuable to consumers that the brand can transcend the ever-present differences between societies. If such brands are to retain their unique positions, they must remain powerful or nimble enough to evade the inevitable competitive onslaught. The case of Samsung shows that sometimes it is better to surrender the brand while the going is good. The case of Starbucks shows that staying one or two steps ahead of competition can do wonders for a brand. The cases of Lock&Lock, Iriver and Romanson show that a new global brand cannot rest on its laurels, and must consistently find new ways to appeal to new segments of societies. Finally, it is up to AIBO and Segway to demonstrate that their clever technology and elegant design can provide sufficient value to consumers around the world.