6826321

8/12/2019 6826321

1/22

Assessing the Movement Toward,

and Identifying the Impediments to,

Standardized Print Advertising

Mark F. ToncarAlida Kuhn

Ilan Alon

ABSTRACT.This research investigates print advertisements in theUnited States and Germany to assess the degree of standardization ofspecific advertising elements. The results are compared to prior investi-gation by Mueller (1990), to learn whether print ads have become moreor less standardized in the two countries. The results suggest that al-though nearly all elements of print advertisements have become substan-tially more standardized since the Mueller study, there are very fewcompletely standardized ads. The authors discuss legal, image and cul-tural factors that contribute to the enduring differences in print ads fromthe two countries. [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: 2002 by

The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS.Standardized advertising, cross-cultural studies, global-ization

Mark F. Toncar is Assistant Professor of Business Administration, Lycoming Col-lege, Williamsport PA. Alida Kuhn is a student at Lycoming College, Williamsport,PA. Ilan Alon is Assistant Professor of International Business, State University of NewYork, Brockport, NY.

Address correspondence to: Mark F. Toncar, Department of Business Administra-tion, Lycoming College, Williamsport, PA 17701 (E-mail: [email protected]).

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the editor and to theanonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on previous ver-

sions of this manuscript.

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14(4) 2002 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 91
http://www.haworthpress.com/http://www.haworthpress.com/

8/12/2019 6826321

2/22

INTRODUCTION

Globalizationthe trend toward a single, integrated, and interdependentglobal economy impelled by increases in international capital flows, interna-tional travel, cross-border exchange of information and ideas, and trade ingoods and serviceshas prompted multinational companies to think of theworld as one market and to examine common needs within and across societ-ies. The new global landscape has been shaped by organizational and strategicfactors, industry structure, environmental (economic, political, technological,etc.) and nationalistic differences. Drivers of globalization include push fac-tors, such as market saturation, competition, and diminishing profits in domes-tic markets, as well as pull factors such as the liberalization and privatization ofeconomic systems, the democratization of political systems, and the emer-gence of multinational regional blocks along with the newly industrializedcountries (Alon and McKee 1999). Cost differentials, greater connectivity (fu-eled to a large extent by the Internet), and emerging global consumer marketshave made internationalization easier and more profitable in recent years.Global consumption patterns in emerging nations are converging with those ofthe West because of global mass media, tourism, immigration, pop culture andthe international marketing activities of transnational companies (Ger andBelk 1996). In particular, the youth market is increasingly integrated becauseits life is set in the context of greater globalization compared to the older gener-ations.

A seminal article by Levitt (1983) examined the globalization of marketsand its impact on organizations internationalization strategy. Levitt suggestedthat global commonalities, driven by advances in technology and communica-tions have led to the standardization of products, manufacturing, and institu-tions of trade and commerce. These arguments have been echoed by Yip(1989, 1997) among others. Proponents of a standardized global approach en-visioned an environment in which worldwide consumers with homogenizedtastes and lifestyles can be satisfied with a single product and reached with asingle message (Mueller 1990): a world in which the relentless pursuit of pro-duction efficiency, low cost, and reliable products overwhelms idiosyncraticdifferences among countries and cultures. Globalization to these individuals isnearly synonymous with modernization, integration, homogenization,westernization/Americanization, progress, efficiency, growth, andopportunities.

The globalization of markets has created a multitude of complex socio-eco-nomic and policy problems that have led to debates and discussions on the im-

pact of globalization on the welfare of society and on its desirability by thecitizenry of the less affluent world (Robertson 1992; Barber 1995; Featherstone1995; Ger and Belk 1996; Friedman 2000). The newly formed global material

92 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

8/12/2019 6826321

3/22

culture has led to social discontent, socioeconomic inequality and polarization,consumer frustrations, stress, and threats to the environment, the working con-ditions, and living standards in developing countries (Ger and Belk 1996).Also, the new global arena is marked by a plurality of cultures, nationalities,ethnicities, religions, and identities, which have led to particularistic and rela-tivistic interpretations of reality (Robertson 1992).

The nexus of globalization, therefore, is a juxtaposition of competing, oftenopposing, paradigms: traditional versus modern, idealism versus materialism,relativism versus universalism, young versus old, connected versus discon-nected, localism versus globalism, the olive tree versus the Lexus, Jihad versusMcWorld, heroic life versus everyday life.

Firms doing business globally or regionally must ultimately address theglobalization issue as it relates to their own marketing strategy. Some, heedingthe call of Levitt and others have sought to standardize all aspects of their mar-keting strategy, with varying degrees of success. However, some businessstrategists have argued that the physical and cultural differences among peo-

ples of the world are far too deeply ingrained to be swept away by the appeal oflow cost products (Douglas and Wind 1987). They cite the enduring difficul-ties encountered by global organizations trying to implement a standardizedmarketing strategy including differences in physical stature, values, climate,and political/legal environments.

Still others, recognizing the environmental diversity as well as the benefitsof a global business strategy, have developed hybridized approaches to marketentry, such as franchising and cross border strategic alliances, and interna-tional marketing strategies embodying various levels of standardization. ManyJapanese businesses, for example, have pursued a strategy of glocalization:global production networks supported by local marketing efforts (Robertson1992). Yip (1997) found that Japanese companies prefer to globalize their

brand, but to localize and adapt distribution and selling. The home-market ori-entation of companies can lead to various approaches to internationalization.Companies conceptualization of globalization will impact their perceptionsof unique global and local market segments with common needs, in which notonly are differing degrees of standardization possible, but also each element ofthe marketing mix can be standardized or customized to varying degrees(Mueller 1996).

Balancing the forces of globalization with those of localization, Yip (1992)suggested that managers identify elements that can be successfully standard-ized through a careful analysis of industry conditions, combined with acost-benefit analysis and a thorough understanding of the different ways that aglobalization strategy can be used. The industry conditions in Yips analysisare represented by four groups of industry globalization drivers,marketdrivers, cost drivers, government drivers and competitive drivers. These driv-

Toncar, Kuhn, and Alon 93

8/12/2019 6826321

4/22

ers are uncontrollable conditions that determine the potential for globalizationin a marketplace. Within the constraints of the globalization drivers are fiveglobal strategy levers,the dimensions of strategy that can be adjusted interms of the degree of globalization. The five global strategy levers are: market

participation, products and services, activity location, marketing and competi-tive moves. Each lever can be set along a continuum of standardization andcustomization, although not every aspect of each lever need be identical interms of the degree of standardization. That is to say, a standardized branddoes not dictate a standardized positioning strategy or promotion strategy.

This research focuses on the standardization of one element of the market-ing strategy, print advertising. Advertising has been characterized as the ele-ment of the marketing mix most resistant to standardization (Boddewyn, Soehland Picard 1986). To be effective, advertising must be consistent with the cul-tural norms of its viewers. Consumers respond in terms of their culture, itsstyle, feelings, value systems, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions (Cateora andGraham 1999, p. 481). Yet, there are enormous potential benefits to standard-izing an advertising message, in terms of decreased production costs and en-hanced brand image consistency.

The purpose of this research is to investigate what advertisers are actuallydoing with regards to their global print advertising strategies and to examinewhether the degree of print advertising standardization has changed over thelast decade. Based on prior work by Mueller (1990), we look at actual adver-tisements placed in magazines in the United States and Germany, and assessthe degree of standardization evident in the ads. We then compare our resultswith Muellers, to give some indication of how print advertising practice has

changed with regards to the standardization issue. Finally, we move beyondidentifying how print ads differ in the two countries to a discussion of whythese differences endure.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

This research is based largely on Muellers (1990) study that investigatedthe degree of standardization of advertising message elements among adver-tisements in the U.S., Germany and Japan. Muellers work was chosen forthree reasons. First, we wanted to compare current data with a previous studythat was approximately 10 years old. Our rationale was simple; we wanted acomparison with a study that was current enough to be relevant, yet datedenough that changes in advertising practice over time would be discernable.Second, we wanted our analysis to compare two western countries, similar inthe degree of economic development and the sophistication of advertising

practice. In this respect, Germany represents an excellent choice since it is a


8/12/2019 6826321

5/22

world economic center in its own right, and represents a substantial transna-tional military, political, social and economic influence. And third, since oneof the authors is a native German, Muellers work seemed especially appropri-ate.

Mueller solicited from advertisers and advertising agencies samples ofcampaigns for U.S. consumer products targeted toward consumers in both theU.S./German and the U.S./Japanese markets for the time period 1985-1987.Included in her analysis were both television and print ads from the three re-spective countries. Her results suggest:

1. Standardization had not yet taken hold in multinational advertising inthe late 1980s.

2. Across both media, product name, packaging and product version weremost often standardized. Creative aspects, such as theme, slogan, mod-els and spokespersons used and visual/background scenes, were lesslikely to be standardized.

3. While some elements are being standardized, specialization of mes-sage elements still plays a central role in communicating with foreignaudiences (Mueller p. 130).

The current investigation uses Muellers work as a baseline, to considerhow advertising practice has changed in the intervening years since that studywas completed. Through a careful comparative analysis, we will identify mes-sage elements that have become substantially more or less standardized sincethe publication of Muellers research. And although comparisons of replicatedresearch are difficult, a restrained interpretation of the data will provide usefulinformation to practitioners and academics alike.

PART ONE:REVISITING THE U.S.-GERMANY ANALYSIS

There are important differences between the current study and the Muellerstudy. First, Mueller considered both print and television ads from Germany,Japan and the Untied States. We consider only print advertisements and onlyfrom Germany and the United States. Second, advertisers and agencies pro-vided Muellers advertisements. We chose instead to more carefully controlour sample through fieldwork. We chose five magazine titles targeting a varietyof audiences. The U.S. magazines chosen were Business Week, Cosmopoli-

tan,Marie Claire,Mens HealthandPlayboy. German editions ofCosmopoli-tan,Marie Claire,Mens HealthandPlayboywere used in the analysis alongwithWirtschafts Woche, a German business weekly.


8/12/2019 6826321

6/22

During the summers of 1998 and 1999, American and German magazineswere collected by the authors, one in the U.S., the other in Germany. We iden-tified ads, one page or larger, for products or organizations that appeared in

both a German and an American publication. For an ad pair to be included, theads had to be promoting the same product, or both had to be corporate ads, pro-moting no specific product. We did not restrict the comparison to ads appear-ing in the same magazine genre (comparisons between an ad appearing in anU.S.Cosmopolitanand a GermanPlayboy, for example, would have been ap-

propriate). All but four ad pairs consisted of ads that appeared in both Germanand U.S. magazines of the same genre. This procedure yielded a total of 54

product/company advertisement pairs representing 18 different product cate-gories. The ads and their sources appear in the appendix.

One author, a native German fluent in English, translated the German ads.

The authors then independently coded the ad pairs for their degree of standard-ization using the instrument developed by Mueller. Eleven message elementswere coded on a scale of 1 to 5 for the degree of standardization. The lower thenumber, the more standardized the element in the pair of ads. The elementswere product packaging, product name, product version, theme, slogan, head-line, subhead, body copy, models/spokespersons, visuals/background, and

product attributes highlighted. Differences in coding were resolved by discus-sion.

A wide variety of products were featured in the ads. These included per-fume, hair colorant, diamond necklace, diamond ring, cigarettes, skin moistur-izing cream, motorcycles, cologne, clothing, compact disc recorders, documentservices, marketing services, telecommunications, insurance, and informationtechnology services, among others. Fourteen of the ad pairs were found in is-

sues ofMarie Claire, 14 inMens Health, 10 inCosmopolitan, six inPlayboy,and six in Business Week-Wirtschafts Woche. The remaining four ad pairswere found inMarie Clairein one country andMens Healthin the other.

RESULTS:A CAUTIOUS COMPARISON

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results of our coding, along with Muellersresults. A comparison of the studies provides some interesting similarities aswell as intriguing differences.

The Similarities

Overall, there is substantial similarity between the studies in terms of whichelements are the most likely to be fully standardized. The four elements mostlikely to be fully standardized in the Mueller study (product name, packaging,


8/12/2019 6826321

7/22

version and advertising theme) were also the most likely to be fully standard-ized in the current study.

Consistent with Muellers results, the product-specific elements of the ad-

vertisements remain the most likely to be completely standardized (See Table1). Product name (87.0%), product packaging (63.0%), and product version(63.0%) were the three elements that were most often fully standardized. This


TABLE 1. Percentage of Print Ads Fully Standardizing Specific Elements

Element Percent Fully StandardizedCurrent Study

Percent Fully StandardizedMueller Study

Product Name 87.0 90.0Product Packaging 63.0 23.3Product Version 63.0 53.3Theme 61.1 13.3Slogan 29.6 3.3Models/Spokespersons 51.9 6.6Subhead 33.3 0.0Attributes Highlighted 13.0 6.6Headline 48.1 10.0Visuals/Background 27.8 0.0

Body Copy 3.7 0.0

TABLE 2. Degree of Standardization Presented Using Means

Element MeanCurrent Study1

MeanMueller Study2

Differencein Means *

Product Packaging 1.22 2.88 1.66Product Name 1.24 1.19 20.05Product Version 1.89 1.81 20.08Theme 2.05 3.25 1.21Slogan 2.00 4.50 2.50Headline 3.24 4.19 0.95Subhead 2.88 5.00 2.13

Body Copy 3.86 4.00 0.14Models/Spokespersons 3.53 4.38 0.85Visuals/Background 3.41 4.38 0.97Attributes Highlighted 3.08 3.00 20.08

Grand Mean 2.58 3.51 1.42

1 Means based on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (German element is very similarto U.S. element)to5 (German element is not similar at all to U.S. element).

2 Mean scores taken from Mueller (1990), Table 2 (page 128), column 3.* Positive scores indicate that the element has become more standardized.

8/12/2019 6826321

8/22

is no surprise, since as recognized by Mueller, decisions related to these ele-ments are often made independently of and prior to, advertising decisions.

Most of the creative elements least standardized in the Mueller study werealso the least standardized in the current study. These include body copy, visu-als and background, subheads, slogans and attributes highlighted. Of these, the

body copy continues to be the least likely element to be standardized, with onlytwo (3.7%) of the 54 ads having standardized body copy.

Turning to a comparison of the degree of standardization, rather than theamount of complete standardization, (See Table 2), our results suggests that,consistent with the Mueller study, product packaging, product name and prod-uct version continue to be the most standardized message elements, while vi-suals/backgrounds, models/spokespersons and body copy remain far less

likely to be standardized.Returning to Table 1, the current data suggest a strong movement toward in-creased standardization of nearly all message elements. Mueller found thatonly two of the 11 message elements, product name (90%) and product version(53.3%) were completely standardized in more than 25% of the print adver-tisements. In the current study, that number is nine. In the Mueller study, onlyfive elements out of 11 were completely standardized in 10% or more of theads. In the current study, that number is 10. In the current study, five of the 11elements (nearly one-half) were completely standardized in more than 50% ofthe ads, compared to two in the Mueller study. All of the creative elements aremore standardized in the current study. The significance of these observed dif-ferences was evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test which indicatedthat a significantly larger percentage of advertising elements in the current

study were fully standardized (z = 2.85; p = .004).This conclusion is evident from Table 2 as well. The difference in the mean

scores of the two studies suggests substantial movement toward standardiza-tion in at least seven of the 11 elements. Three are more similar by two scale

points or more and seven by at least one scale point. The creative elements arealso becoming more standardized. In terms of the magnitude of change in cellmeans from the Mueller study to the current study, three of the four largestchanges were among creative elements. These include the largest change, 2.50(slogan) and the second largest, 2.13 (subhead).

Finally, a comparison of the grand means of columns 2 and 3 of Table 2 is il-lustrative. The grand mean can be cautiously interpreted as a crude measure ofthe overall standardization of advertising across all message elements. On ascale of 1 to 5, with lower numbers indicating a greater degree of standardiza-

tion, Muellers data had grand mean of 3.51. The current study grand mean is2.58. Using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test, the difference among the twogroups is significant (z = 2.40; p = .016), offering support for the proposition


8/12/2019 6826321

9/22

that print advertisements in the U.S. and Germany are becoming more stan-dardized.

A further test of means suggests that the greatest movement toward stan-dardization has occurred among the creative elements of print ads. A Wilcoxonsigned ranks test using only the eight creative elements yielded significant dif-ferences among the sample means (4.09 versus 3.01; z = 2.38; p = .017), whilea paired sample t-test using only the non-creative elements indicated no signif-icant differences (1.96 versus 1.45; z = 1.30; p = .469). A paired sample t-testwas used in this instance because the sample size (n = 3) renders a signed ranktest meaningless. However, due to the small sample size, this last analysis isespecially sensitive to Type II errors, in which the statistical test may not re-veal significant differences when in fact, such differences do exist.

DISCUSSION:A CAREFUL INTERPRETATION

A cautious interpretation of the data yields important observations regard-ing how print advertising has evolved since the mid 1980s. The movement to-ward globalization in the world economy is reflected in the print advertising ofthe United States and Germany. Most notably, there has been a clear move-ment toward increased standardization of nearly all elements of print advertising.This is evident in Table 1, which shows that the number of fully standardizedmessage elements has increased in 10 of 11 categories. This is also evident inTable 2, which shows that the degree of standardization of each element has in-creased in all 11 categories, with seven of the 11 changes a full scale point or

more. Finally, a comparison of the grand means of Table 2 also suggests move-ment toward increased standardization.

The greatest movement toward standardization has been among the creativeelements, notably the slogan and theme of print ads. There are several explana-tions for this. First, the non-creative elements were already relatively standard-ized at the time of Muellers study. Further standardization of these elementsmay be difficult, as some product adjustments are often necessary to complywith physical or legal requirements in host countries. Second, the emphasis ona standardized theme may be a reflection of advertisers increasingly globalviewpoint, in which markets are defined less in geographic terms, and more interms of the common needs that products satisfy across cultures, countries andcontinents. This may reflect the concept of pattern advertising; standardizingthe what, while customizing the how. Global organizations may seek todevelop a uniform, unified theme for their world-wide promotion, yet realizethe necessity to modify the message based on social, cultural or legal consider-ations.


8/12/2019 6826321

10/22

A third explanation lies in the increasing popularity of Integrated MarketingCommunications (IMC). Global marketers are increasingly making use of avariety of media outlets and promotional alternatives, and coordinating theseactivities for maximum exposure and effectiveness. Consequently, advertisersare developing unified promotional strategies, employing consistent themes,slogans and personalities, across media. This may be viewed essentially asstandardization of advertising and promotion acrossmedia, rather than acrossmarkets. However, the end result is an increased standardization inboth mediaandmarkets.

The More Things Change . . .

The data suggests that print advertisements have become more standardized

since the mid-1980s. However, that does not imply that continued standardiza-tion is inevitable or desirable. In spite of the cost savings associated with stan-dardized advertising, and the value of delivering a consistent worldwidemessage, only eight of the 54 advertisements (14.8%) in the current study werecompletely standardized. This compares with two out of 16 (12.5%) ads in theMueller study. It is an interesting paradox that although most comparisons in-dicate that print advertising has become more standardized, the percentage offully standardized ads has remained virtually the same. Certain elements of

print ads seem to defy standardization. Body copy, the attributes highlightedand visual and background elements seem particularly resistant to standardiza-tion.

While it is useful to see that advertising practice has changed since themid-1980s, it is more useful to learn how and why. The next section of this pa-

per will address these questions through a careful reexamination of the dataused in this study.

PART TWO:FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE

THE STANDARDIZATION OF PRINT ADS

In this section, we first investigate whether the type of product advertisedinfluences the degree of print ad standardization. We then look at the tangibledifferences among ad pairs to learn how, from an execution standpoint, the ad

pairs differed. Finally, we consider these differences in terms of the less tangi-ble factors that underlie them.

The Influence of Product Type on the Standardization of Print Ads

To investigate how product type may influence the decision to standardizespecific message elements in this study, we chose to categorize each product


8/12/2019 6826321

11/22

advertised into one of the four quadrants of the FCB (Foote, Cone, Belding)matrix. The FCB matrix categorizes products along two dimensions: the im-

portance of the decision (Involvement) and whether the decision is based onthinking or feeling. Previous research suggests that the FCB matrix can be auseful product classification tool both in the U.S. (Zaichkowsky 1987; Ratchford1987) and in other countries (Wood 1986).

The authors independently classified each product into one of the fourquadrants of the FCB matrix. Of the 54 products, 11 were placed in quadrant 1(high involvement, thinking), 40 in quadrant 2 (high involvement feeling), onein quadrant 3 (low involvement thinking) and two in quadrant 4 (low involve-ment feeling). Since quadrants 1 and 2 contained over 90% of all products,only these products were considered in our analysis.

Analysis of variance was used to investigate the relationship between theFCB quadrant and the standardization of each message element. Four of the 11elements were significantly related to the FCB quadrant of the advertised

product. In all four cases, high involvement feeling products were more stan-dardized than high involvement thinking products. This was true for headlines(1.63 versus 4.30; F(1,46) = 42.55; p = .000), subheads (1.93 versus 3.67;F(1,33) = 7.82; p = .009), theme (1.45 versus 2.55; F(1,49) = 10.02; p = .003),and models/spokespersons (2.00 versus 4.43; F(1,41) = 11.64; p = .001). Theuse of visuals was also more likely to be standardized for high involvementfeeling products than for high involvement thinking products, and this rela-tionship was marginally significant (2.45 versus 3.36; F(1,49) = 2.99; p =.091).

Although the sample size is small, and the products are not uniformly dis-tributed among all quadrants of the FCB grid, our results suggest that the typeof product may influence the degree of standardization of print advertising forthat product. Among high involvement products, those products that arelargely emotional purchases appear far more amenable to standardized printadvertising than products that are more rational purchases.

The Tangible Differences Between U.S. and German Print Ads

We began this analysis by identifying all elements of all ad pairs whichwere scored as either a 4 or a 5, indicating that, for the executional elementinvolved, the ads were highly unstandardized. Thirty-two of the ad pairs con-tained at least one element that had been scored a 4 or 5. Eighty-eight ele-ments in all were identified. Some ads differed in only one executionalelement, while others differed in as many as eight.

The tangible differences among the executional elements in the ad pairswere considerable and varied. In some cases, the entire tone and message ofthe ad seemed to be different. In others, only one element, such as the headline


8/12/2019 6826321

12/22

was altered. Visual differences often included the use of different models orbackground. Copy differences related to the length of copy and the type of in-formation contained in the copy. We observed the following general differ-ences between the U.S. and German ads.

1. The German ads contained more text, and supplied more informationthan the U.S. ads.

2. The German ads focused on tangible product features and the benefits ofthe features, often including detailed explanations. The U.S. ads weremore general and often provided vague and intangible benefits, as wellas less information.

3. The German ads stressed functionality, quality and satisfaction. Thesame U.S. ads focused on self-gratification and used more emotional ap-

peals.4. U.S. ads stressed individual accomplishment and freedom as values

worthy of reward. These appeals were not evident in German ads.

The results suggest that the German ads were generally more objective andinformational than the U.S. ads, providing detailed information about tangiblefeatures and functions of the products. These conclusions, while interesting,do not provide any insight as to why these differences endure. But a careful ex-amination of each executional difference does yield informative insights.

Underlying Factors

The results of the content analysis suggest that there are three factors thataccount for most of the differences in the executional elements of U.S. andGerman print ads. These factors are: (1) Legal, (2) Image, and (3) Cultural.Each is described below.

1. Legal Factors. There are legal issues that require print ads to be altered.These can be divided into two categories; direct and indirect legal factors. Di-rect legal factors include regulations that control the creative content of a printad. These include regulations and prohibitions that an advertiser is subject to inone country but not in another. For example, while comparative advertising iswidely used in the U.S., and encouraged by the Federal Trade Commission, the

practice is illegal in Germany. This would no doubt impact the creative execu-tion of a German print ad of a U.S.-based advertiser accustomed to utilizingthis message tactic in the U.S. This was not an issue in this study, however.

None of the U.S. ads used in our analysis used comparative advertising.Germanys regulation regarding promotion and advertising is a mixture of

judicial rules and voluntary guidelines developed by various industry associa-tions. The law against unfair competition in Germany allows competitors to

bring suit if advertising violates good manners (U.S. Department of State,


8/12/2019 6826321

13/22

1999). Consequently, advertisers tend to make more factual and less dramaticclaims regarding their products.

Indirect legal factors refer to legal issues peripheral to the ad, but relevant tothe product in the ad. For example, ad pair number 12, for Kawasaki Motorcy-cles, contained substantially different appeals in the two ads. The U.S. ad fo-cused primarily on the product, and the feeling that ownership of the productwill give the user. Product features are mixed in with rich, vivid descriptions.The ad ends with the headline, let the good times roll.

The German ad also utilizes evocative imagery. The solid cruiser. Free-dom. It awakes drivers instincts. But the ad copy is largely devoted to ex-

plaining that potential owners need not obtain a 1" license to drive it, and thatanyone who received an automobile driving license before April 1, 1980 cansimply drive it without any special licensing. In Germany, specific licenses arerequired to operate motorcycles of different sizes (1, 1a, 1b, 3). This, coupledwith the fact that these driving licenses are quite expensive, relative to a U.S.driving license, make this information important to include in a German printad for the Kawasaki. The differences between the ads in this ad pair are at leastin part due to different motorcycle licensing and regulation practices in the re-spective countries.

Legal issues will continue to be an important consideration for advertisersconsidering standardized messages. However, as the European Union contin-ues toward increased political unification, the issue should become less rele-vant for pan-European advertising strategies. The European Commissionissued a Green Paper in May, 1996 outlining the Commissions plan to estab-lish a coherent policy for all forms of commercial communication, includingdirect marketing, advertising, sales promotion, public relations and sponsor-ship. The Commission believed that regulatory differences in member coun-tries inhibited the development of a truly open internal market. The InternalMarket Council of the European Union adopted most of the proposals of theGreen Paper in May, 1998. Subsequent actions have resulted in limited prog-ress however. The EC Expert Group on commercial communications has metseveral times but thus far has only considered issues of price discounting and

premiums. While a European advertising policy may emerge, it has not yetdone so (EASA 2000).

2. Image Factors. Products that have a consistent image across countries aremore amenable to standardized advertising. However, many products, though

popular in a variety of countries, do not have a consistent image, and are pur-chased to satisfy different needs in different countries. A case in point is ad

pair number 13, for Harley Davidson Motorcycles. In the United States, HarleyDavidson has a powerful meaning. It is freedom, rebellion, individualism. Thelast American cowboys are Harley owners. For many, Harley Davidson is not

just a brand, it is a way of life. This image taps into a specific market in the


8/12/2019 6826321

14/22

U.S., individuals who hold strong values, and identify Harley Davidsonstrongly with those values. This image is exemplified by headlines such asMy older brother has a Harley. Mom told me his name is Dave.

In Germany, however, the Harley Davidson brand image is quite different.Harley Davidson means prestige, the best that a motorcycle can get. A superiorquality American product. It is no surprise then that the U.S. and GermanHarley Davidson ads are markedly different. Unlike the U.S. ad, which cele-

brates the rebellious, renegade individuality, the German ad emphasizes theprestige and uniqueness of owning a Harley Davidson, and seems to suggest toreaders that they not let their lives slip away without owning one.

When a product has a consistent image across countries, and can be consid-ered a regional or world brand, standardized advertising may be appropriate.But when a product means different things in different countries, buyingmotives are more complex and less uniform. Standardization in these condi-tions seems an ineffective strategy. However, it is also important to recognizethe role that advertising plays in creating product meanings, not just reinforc-ing them. One objective of a global advertising strategy may be to develop aconsistent product meaning across multiple cultures and countries. This is anontrivial matter because product attributes and benefits are viewed throughcultural filters that give multiple meanings to material goods across cultures.

3. Cultural Factors. Many differences between German and U.S. print ad-vertising copy can be traced to enduring differences in German and Americanculture. These differences manifest themselves as either surface characteris-tics, such as cultural artifacts and traditions, or as underlying dimensions ofculture.

Differences in traditions often result in different advertising tactics. Differ-ences in the courtship rituals in the U.S. and Germany are evident in ad pair 6,for a DeBeers diamond ring. In the U.S. it is customary for a couple to com-

plete an often prolonged engagement, prior to marriage. A cultural artifactof this engagement period is the engagement ring; a diamond ring which isexpected to cost the equivalent of two months of the suitors salary. This cul-tural tradition is well understood in the U.S. and the diamond ring holds specialsignificance in American culture. In Germany, however, it is unusual for cou-

ples to become formally engaged prior to marriage, and if they do, this bondis generally signified with a simple ring, similar to an American wedding band.A diamond ring does not have the symbolic value in Germany that it does inthe U.S. This is reflected in the product advertising. The U.S. ad features thering as the central element of the ad. The ad copy is emotional, evocative andself-centered. The German ad is wordy, very informative and stresses the qual-ity and value of the investment. The focus of the advertisement is a smiling,

beautiful woman, who happens to be wearing a diamond ring.Artifacts and traditions are an outgrowth of culture. And when one exam-


8/12/2019 6826321

15/22

ines the fundamental differences in U.S. and German culture, it seems clearthat culture can explain many of the enduring differences in print advertising

between the countries.Hofstede (1980) suggests that cultures vary along four basic dimensions.

These dimensions are: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncer-tainty avoidance and sex role differentiation. And although Hofstedes work is

based upon research conducted using only IBM employees in a variety ofcountries, it has been widely used in prior research to investigate cultural is-sues. Table 3 summarizes the scores of both the U.S. and Germany for thefour dimensions. As indicated in Table 3, the U.S. and Germany are quite similaralong the dimensions of power distance and sex role differentiation. However,the values for the dimensions of individualism/collectivism and uncertaintyavoidance are substantially different for the two countries. U.S. culture is moreindividualist than Germany, as well as more tolerant of uncertainty. If endur-ing cultural differences contribute to enduring advertising execution differ-ences, these differences should be evident along these two dimensions.

The content analysis suggests that this is, in fact, the case. German ads tendto be more wordy, contain more factual claims, and discuss product featuresand benefits far more than American ads. An example of this is ad pair 20, forMicrosoft. The U.S. ad emphasizes empowerment in both the text and the visu-als, and is very brief, making no specific claims. The German ad is wordier,and tells a story, metaphorically related to a series of photographs in the ad.The story is long, straightforward, and rational. This speaks directly to the in-creased uncertainty avoidance of German culture. The German ads generallycontained more information and presented the information in a relativelystraightforward way.

A second example, which speaks directly to the increased uncertainty-avoidance of German culture, is ad pair 18, for Siebel Service Systems. TheU.S. ad features the Chairman of Siebels, and is vague, stressing generalitiessuch as, We do whatever it takes and we are here to serve our customers. TheGerman ad, though identical in many respects to the American ad, features theChief Financial Officer of Compaq, offering a testimonial. The ad copy ismuch more specific and informational, addressing a specific problem with


TABLE 3. Hofstede Dimension Scores

Dimension U.S. Germany

Power Distance 40 35Individualism 91 67Sex Role Differentiation 62 66Uncertainty Avoidance 46 65

8/12/2019 6826321

16/22

comments such as, powerful computer-telephone integration, and RapidApplication Deployment Method. This ad pair is particularly striking in that itobviously is a standardized advertising layout, but with some execution com-

ponents substantially altered.Still another example is ad pair 22, for Zurich Insurance. The U.S ad is

vague, offers no specific benefits, is non-informational, and uses minimal text.The German ad, however, is stark and specific, addressing a relevant problemin a rational a straightforward manner.

When one claim or benefit is central to a German ad, it is likely to be a tangi-ble, believable benefit. The same U.S. ad is likely to emphasize general, intan-gible benefits. An excellent example of this can be found in ad pair 4 for DiorsEau de Dolce Vita perfume. The German and American ads are identical, withthe exception of the headline. The German headline read, A Touch of Fresh-

ness, a product benefit that is closely tied to a tangible feature of the product.In other words, the scent of the product (a product feature), will result in a spe-cific benefit, a feeling of freshness. The U.S. ad headline reads, Sheer Happi-ness, a benefit that is far less specific and cannot be specifically related to asingle product feature.

Differences in the individualism/collectivism dimension are also evident inthe ad pairs. In ad pair 11 for Marlboro cigarettes, the U.S. ad features anAmerican cowboy, putting his faithful horse to rest for the evening. The toneof the ad is solitary, featuring a rugged individualist. The German ad featuresfive seemingly American cowboys communing over a campfire at sundown inthe wide-open spaces of the American West. This ad pair is particularly inter-esting in light of the writings of Karl May (1842-1912), one of the most widelyread German writers. May often wrote tales of adventures set in the American

West, often with heroes of German descent. The use of the cowboy setting inthe German ad is better understood within the context of the popularity ofMays writing.

Another example can found in ad pair 5, for a DeBeers diamond necklace.The German ad features a smiling beautiful woman, clearly the focus of the ad.The woman is wearing a diamond necklace. The ad communicates happiness,gratitude, and love. The American ad has a very different theme. The necklaceis not only the central focus of the ad, all else is a background blur. Instead ofhappiness, the motive seems to be self-gratification, and is evident in the bodycopy, which asks, rhetorically, Isnt it time you owned one? This ad, in par-ticular, seems to embody the inherent materialism of American culture.

SUMMARY, PART TWOPart two of this study identified several important factors that appear to in-

fluence the standardization of print advertising. First, using the FCB grid, we


8/12/2019 6826321

17/22

demonstrate that the product may influence the decision and ability to stan-dardize at least some elements of print advertising. Although the analysis waslimited to high involvement products, our results suggest that standardizationof print ad elements is more widespread for products that represent emotional

buying decisions as opposed to more rational product decisions.We also identify three underlying factors that account for much of the dif-

ferences in the executional elements of print ads in the U.S. and Germany.These include direct and indirect legal factors, image factors and cultural fac-tors. Differences in the legal environment of the two countries, or of the adver-tised products image affect the efficacy of standardizing a promotionalmessage. In addition, it seems clear that many advertisers continue to adjusttheir print advertising in response to enduring cultural distinctions betweenU.S. and German consumers.

DISCUSSION

This investigation had two objectives. The first was to assess how far thestandardization of print advertising in the U.S. and Germany has progressedsince the mid-1980s. We demonstrate that in contrast to Muellers conclusionof a decade ago, standardization of print messages has taken hold in multina-tional advertising. By all measures, the individual elements of print advertis-ing have become more standardized, indicating that advertisers are increasinglyable to take advantage of production and creative efficiencies, and are success-fully presenting a uniform product and company image across borders.

Increases in globalization between Europe and North America, in general,

and between Germany and the U.S., in particular, have brought the consumerbase of these regions and countries closer together. In 1998, U.S. direct foreigninvestment position in Germany was $43 billion, while Germanys investmentin the U.S. accounted for about $95 billion (U.S. Department of State, 2001).While Germany is an economic pole in Europe, the U.S. is a growth center in

North America. Most of the world trade flows occur between the richest coun-tries in North America, Europe and Asia. This global triangular trade patternhas allowed consumer tastes and preferences to converge in these regions, per-mitting a greater increase in the standardization of products and promotionalmaterial.

Germany is among the top 10 trading partners of the U.S. both in terms ofimports and exports. Table 4 provides additional statistics about the two coun-tries. While GDP per capita is a traditional measure of economic development,it is also the most important factor in determining trade flows between coun-tries (Linder 1961). Similarities in the economic structure of Germany and theU.S. have stimulated increases in trade and investment between the two coun-


8/12/2019 6826321

18/22

tries. We propose that this economic globalization is a major factor contribut-ing to increases in standardization between U.S.-based and German-basedadvertising over the last decade.

Although our results suggest that globalization of consumer tastes is takingplace between Germany and the U.S., we also demonstrate that complete stan-dardization remains an elusive goal, if it is a goal at all. Cultural, linguistic, andlegal factors have contributed to differences in advertising execution. It is un-likely that advertising messages will ever be completely standardized. This is

because the effectiveness of many advertisements rests on specific linguistictactics that are difficult or impossible to effectively translate. Figures ofspeech, such as metaphors, hyperbole and alliteration are widely used in U.S.advertising. McQuarrie and Mick (1992) found that 86% of 154 full page printads used a figure of speech in the headline or subheadlines, and Leigh (1994)

found that nearly 75% of a sample of 2,468 print ads used at least one figure ofspeech in the headline alone. While it may be possible to literally translate thewords used in an advertisement from one language and culture to the next, it isnot possible to translate the word play, subtle nuances and multiple meaningsoften associated with advertisements. For example, Nut n Honey is impos-sible to effectively translate into most languages and preserve the doublemeaning, and arguably, the effectiveness of the message.

The second objective was to identify factors that affect the standardizationdecision. Toward that end, we provide evidence that the product category ap-

pears to be an important consideration. In addition, the study suggests that ad-vertisers continue to recognize and respond to important legal, image, andcultural issues that either encourage or require them to modify their message.This research makes an important contribution to our understanding of globaladvertising practice. It is clear that at least in the case of the U.S. and Germany,

print advertising has become far more standardized since the publication of theMueller study in 1990. It is equally clear, however, that enduring differences,


TABLE 4. A Comparison of Germany and the United States

Germany United States of America

Per capita GDP (1997) 25,468 28,789GNP rank 3 1Female labor participation 42% 46%Daily Newspaper per thousand 317 228Population per yearly tourist 5.19 5.78Trade share of GDP 46 24

Statistics were compiled by the authors from the U.S. Department of State (2001), the World Devel-opment Report (1999), and the United Nations web site:http://www.un.org/pubs/cyberschoolbus/infonation/e_infonation.htm
http://www.un.org/pubs/cyberschoolbus/infonation/e_infonation.htmhttp://www.un.org/pubs/cyberschoolbus/infonation/e_infonation.htm

8/12/2019 6826321

19/22

even between two western nations, still necessitate the customization of atleast some aspect of most print advertisements.

LIMITATIONS

For this research to make a contribution to our understanding of the issue ofstandardized advertising, it is important to understand and acknowledge thelimitations imposed by the research design. First, this investigation was nar-row in scope, examining only 54 pairs of advertisements appearing in fivemagazines in two Western nations. Time and resource constraints, along withthe desire to closely replicate Muellers work, account for this limitation. Thenarrow scope, along with the small sample size, pose valid questions concern-

ing whether these results are representative of U.S.-German print ads in gen-eral, and whether these results can be extended outside the U.S. and Germanyto address the standardization issue in other countries.

Second, the sampling method we chose was designed to provide a variety ofad pairs targeted toward different audiences. We believe we were successful inaccomplishing this objective. However, it is important to recognize that we ar-

bitrarily chose five pairs of magazines from which to draw our sample. We donot claim that our sample is representative of magazine advertisements in theUnited States and Germany. We did, however, successfully obtain advertise-ments for a variety of products targeted to several different consumer seg-ments.

Third, care must be taken when comparing studies that involve the subjec-tive coding of data. We cannot know whether the coding procedure in the cur-

rent study is truly comparable with the procedure used by Mueller. Differencesin the magnitude of individual elements cannot be meaningfully comparedacross studies. While we do demonstrate that there appears to be a substan-tially higher degree of standardization of message elements, these differencesmay be due to coding procedures, and may not reflect movement toward stan-dardization. This limitation is mitigated by two factors. First, the similarities ofthe studies, in terms of the percentage of ads that are fully standardized, and inthe relative standardization of product versus creative elements, does providesome face validity. Second, although coding issues are a legitimate concern re-lating to the information contained in Table 2, there are no such concerns relat-ing to the information contained in Table 1. This is because Table 1 summarizesonly advertising elements that are completely standardized. Individuals cod-ing the standardization of advertising elements would be far more likely to rec-ognize and consistently code identical objects as being identical objects. Andonly those elements judged to be identical are included in the Table. Conse-quently, the data in Table 1 is directly comparable across the two studies. And


8/12/2019 6826321

20/22

given the consistent results presented in Tables 1 and 2, we are confident thatthe effects of coding differences are inconsequential.

Fourth, it is important to recognize that we used one German judge and oneAmerican judge in our analysis. The German judge translated all of the Ger-man ads into English before any ad comparisons were made. While we arecompletely confident that the German ads were accurately translated, researchinvolving language translation is always problematic. Therefore it is prudentto recognize the potentially important limitation of accurate translation.

Fifth, a very specific limitation related to the data in Table 1 must be pointedout. Muellers data includes both Germany and Japan, along with the U.S.Conceivably, the standardization scores are lower than in our study because ofthe inclusion of Japan, a more culturally dissimilar country. However, the datain Table 2, which is quite consistent with Table 1, contains only U.S. and Ger-

man advertising information.Finally, it is important to note that this research does not address the effec-

tiveness of the advertisements in the two countries. Our purpose was to assess,quantitatively, if there has been movement toward increased standardizationof specific advertisements, and to interpret, qualitatively, why the differencesthat we observed, might endure. We do not suggest that either standardized ornon-standardized advertisements are more or less effective.

REFERENCES

Alon, Ilan, and David L. McKee (1999), Towards a Macroenvironmental Model ofInternational Franchising,Multinational Business Review, 7 (1), 76-82.

Barber, Benjamin (1995),Jihad vs. McWorld, Times Books, New York.Boddewyn, J. J. Robin Soehl and Jacques Picard (1986), Standardization in Interna-tional Marketing: Is Ted Levitt in Fact Right? Business Horizons, Nov./Dec.,p. 69-75

Cateora, Philip R. and John L. Graham (1999) International Marketing, 10th edition,Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Douglas, Susan P. and Yoram Wind (1987), The Myth of Globalization, ColumbiaJournal of World Business, 22 (Winter), p. 19-29.

European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) (2000),http://www.easa-alliance.org/ (retrieved November 15, 2000).

Featherstone, Mike (1995), Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Iden-tity, Sage Publications, London.

Friedman, Thomas L. (2000),The Lexus and the Oliver Tree(Newly Updated and Ex-panded Edition), Anchor Books, New York.

Ger, Guliz and Russell W. Belk (1996), Id Like to Buy the World a Coke: Con-

sumptionscapes of the Less Affluent World, Journal of Consumer Policy, 19,271-304.Hofstede, Geert (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work

related Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

http://www.easa-alliance/http://www.easa-alliance/

8/12/2019 6826321

21/22

Leigh, James H. (1994), The Use of Figures of Speech in Print Ad Headlines,Jour-nal of Advertising, 23 (June), 17-34.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review,May/June, p. 92-102.

Linder, S. B. (1961), An Essay in Trade Transformation, New York: John Wiley andSons.

McQuarrie, Edward F. and David Glen Mick (1996), Figures of Rhetoric in Advertis-ing Language,Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (March), 424-438.

Mueller, Barbara (1996),International Advertising: Communicating Across Cultures,Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

______ (1990), Degrees of Globalization: An Analysis of the Standardization ofMessage Elements in Multinational Advertising,Current Issues and Research andIssues in Advertising (12), Numbers 1 & 2, James H. Leigh and Claude R. MartinJr. eds. University of Michigan.

Ratchford, Brian T. (1987), New Insights About the FCB Grid,Journal of Advertis-ing Research, 27 (4), 24-38.

Robertson, Roland (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, SagePublications, London.

U.S. Department of State (2001), Country Commercial Guide: Germany,http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/2001/index.html (retrieved De-cember 14, 2000).

Wood, Wally (1986), Tools of the Trade, Marketing and Media Decisions, (May),152-155.

World Development Report (1999),Knowledge for Development, Washington D.C.:World Bank.

Yip, George S. (1989), Global Strategy . . . In a World of Nations? Sloan Manage-ment Review(Fall), 29-42.

Yip, George S. (1992),Total Global Strategy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Yip, George S. (1997), Patterns and Determinants of Global Marketing, Journal of

Marketing Management, (January), 153-165.Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynn (1987), Emotional Aspects of Product Involvement, Ad-

vances in Consumer Research, 14, M.Wallendorfand P.F. Anderson, eds., Ann Ar-bor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 32-35.

SUBMITTED: July 2000FIRST REVISION: September 2000

SECOND REVISION: November 2000ACCEPTED: January 2001

http://www/http://www/

8/12/2019 6826321

22/22

6826321

Documents