Universal appeals with local specificationsMing-Huei Hsieh

Department of International Business, Yuan Ze University, Chung-Li, Taoyuan, Taiwan, and

Andrew LindridgeManchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK

AbstractPurpose – Aims to explore the factorial structure of automobile brand image in the context of a cross-national study. More specifically, we intend toanswer two questions: whether the factor structure of brand image perception differ across countries, and whether these differences are owing tonation’s culture and level of economic development.Design/methodology/approach – An existing data set, which consists of data collected from survey research, was employed. Data covering the top20 automobile markets consisting of 4,320 eligible new car owners. Perception of and attitude towards automobile brand associations were measuredusing nominal scales.Findings – Provides empirical evidence that supports the applicability of multiple brand image dimensions corresponding to the consumer’s sensory,utilitarian, symbolic and economic needs at the global level. The study also suggested that factor structure of brand image differs across nations andthese differences might be reflective to a nation’s culture and its level of economic development.Research limitations/implications – As with any empirical study, this research inevitably has its limitations, which presents opportunities for furtherresearch: extensions of the present framework to other product categories; extensions of the national factors; extensions of the brand associations; andmeasurement improvement.Practical implications – Understanding the similarities or differences of the factor structure of brand image across the globe facilitates the formationof a successful global image strategy. First of all, by exploring brand image structure at the global level; and the specific interrelationships among thecorresponding associationsOriginality/value – The results derived from the 20 diverse nations in the present study not only enhance our understanding of brand image structurebut also provide a strong test of the empirical generalizability of automobile brand image dimensionality and factor structure in a global context.

Keywords Brand image, Automotive industry

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

With the accelerated movement of globalization (e.g. Levitt,

1983; Szymanski et al., 1993), the emergence of brands across

nations revitalizes the age-old issue of which brand image

strategies, standardization versus customization, should be

used in which market. Previously Belk and Pollay (1985)

suggested that cultural variations may influence how

consumers organize the brand image in their mind in two

interrelated ways:1 the content of communication messages delivered by the

markets: and2 the kind of associations consumers focus on when

perceiving a brand.

Following this thought, proponents argue in favor of a

customization strategy in order to cater to the specific

characteristics of each market. Alternatively, others argue that

the representation of the brand image, i.e. the number and the

definition of the basic image dimension, remain largely similar

across countries owing to culturally related individual values

(Schwartz, 1994) and needs (Park et al., 1986). Furthermore,

as consumers are becoming more similar psychologically amid

the process of globalization (Hermans and Kempen, 1998)

evidence also suggests that in some product categories there is

a widespread acceptance of foreign products across the world

in arising from the assumption that these products respond to

the universal needs and wants of consumers (Levitt, 1983).Some scholars have expressed skepticism about the value of

a standardization strategy because important national

differences are often overlooked (Whitelock and Chung,

1989). At the same time, a customization strategy might

neglect the homogeneity between nations and could result in

diseconomies of scale. The balance between standardization

and customization of international brand image strategy may

lie in the extent to which the existing brand image that people

perceive and focus is similarly or differently perceived across

the globe.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

14/1 (2005) 14–28

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420510583716]

The authors acknowledge the contribution of MORPACE InternationalInc. in providing the dataset for analysis. This study was partially fundedby the National Science Council under the research project of NSC 92-2416-H-155-035

14

Aaker and Benet-Martinez (2001) examined thesimilarities/differences of the number and nature of brandpersonality dimensions between two culturally distinctivecountries (i.e. Spain and Japan) and identified both commonand cultural-specific brand personality dimensions. Accordingto Keller (1993) brand image construct is composed of threetypes of brand associations:1 attribute;2 benefit; and3 brand attitude.

Unlike Aaker and Benet-Martinez’s (2001) study where non-product attribute-based brand associations were investigated,our study focuses instead on benefit-based brand associations.The aim of this article then is to examine the extent to whichconsumers across countries share a similar perceptualrepresentation of the benefit-based multi-dimensional brandimage in a wider variety of markets.The issue of brand globalization is particularly important in

the context of the automotive industry. As competitioncontinues to grow in domestic markets, an increasing numberof companies, such as Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors,Ford and Volkswagon are attempting to offset low marketgrowth in domestic markets by entering the new emerging carmarkets, such as China. With the adoption of brandmanagement (Lienert, 1998) auto-manufacturers arecompeting fiercely in meeting consumer needs byreconfirming the links between associations and brands inconsumers’ minds. Images of brands can become well formedin customers’ minds through high marketing expendituresand high market penetration of the product (Kirmani andZeithaml, 1991). Thus, it is expected that the issue of brandimage management will continue to play a critical role in theautomobile industry.The next two sections provide background on the

conceptualization of benefit-based multi-dimensional brandimage and the national cultural and economic factors thatmight influence the factor structure of brand image. Then thecharacteristics of data set employed are described. Results arereported at global and nation level and their implications arediscussed. Finally, limitations and extensions for futureresearch are suggested.

Literature review

The supporting literature consists of three inter-relatedsections that illustrate the relationships between brandimage and countries national characteristics. First, howbrand images are derived from brand associations andsubsequently how these are structured are illustrated. Thenbrand image structure and its inter-relationship with countriesnational factors conclude the literature review.

The conceptualization of brand image perception

Brand image research has long been recognized as one of thecentral areas of the marketing research field not only becauseit serves as a foundation for tactical marketing mix issues butalso because it plays an integral role in building long-termbrand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993; Park and Srinivasan,1994). Rooted in psychology, brand image can be consideredas a new variety of “old” psychological variables attempting toexplain consumer behaviors. Since the early 1960s, divergentconcepts were proposed in which attitude-based imageresearch has come to dominate the field of brand image

research. More recently, following the principles of the

cognitive and psychological approach (Haugtvedt et al., 1991)brand equity researchers (Keller, 1993; Farquhar and Herr,

1991) have explicitly defined brand image as a set ofperceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand

associations held in the consumers’ memory. Two structuralproperties of brand association, namely abstraction and

complexity, are elaborated below to support the proposedbenefit-based multi-dimensional brand image construct.Farquhar and Herr (1991) and Keller (1993) distinguished

different types of brand associations including attribute,benefit and/or brand attitude on the basis of their level of

abstraction. Implications of level of abstraction include theamount of information and its self-relevance to the consumer

(Wu et al., 1988). Brand associations at a higher level ofabstraction, such as benefit and brand attitude, possess

summarizing information and have a closer relationship withthe consumer self than do product attributes. For example, inthe automobile industry the benefit association of good

acceleration summarizes the product attribute informationsuch as number of seconds required to accelerate from low

speed to fourth gear, engine size, and/or whether variableratio power steering is offered. The relationship between good

acceleration and consumer self is stronger than that betweenengine size and consumer self because good acceleration,

which is kind of “perceived” information, provides readilymade evaluations in forming a preference. The important roleof self-relevance in conceptualizing brand image structure is

also supported by the notion that brand image is a largelysubjective and perceptual phenomenon (Dobni and Zinkhan,

1990). As such, although it is suggested that brand imageshould encompass all the associations at different levels of

abstraction (for example Keller, 1993; Kirmani and Zeithaml,1991), it is plausible to incorporate only benefit associationsinto brand image construct in the case where a parsimonious

model is required.As far as the dimensionality is concerned, the

multi-dimensional representation of brand image structurecould be supported by the structure property of complexity.

Complexity of beliefs associated with an attitude object istypically defined “as the dimensionality of the beliefs that a

person holds about an attitude object, i.e. the number ofdimensions needed to describe the space utilized by theattribute ascribed to the attitude object” (Eagly and Chaiken,

1993, p. 103). After being exposed to the communicationmessage, in accordance with the attribute ascribed to a

product for a period of time, consumers will then develop amultitude of associations reflecting their multiple interests,

needs and wants. Therefore, any construct that isconceptualized within a single dimension is unlikely to

capture the representation of image perception of a well-known brand. Park et al. (1986) in response, proposed threedistinctive brand benefit concepts: functional/utilitarian,

symbolic and experiential. These are defined as brand-unique abstract meanings that typically originate from a

particular configuration of product features and a firm’sefforts to create meaning from these arrangements.Alternatively, Claeys et al. (1995) distinguish between

consumer’s cognitive structure for “think” and “feel”

products. “Think” products are bought mainly forutilitarian cognitive reasons (Rossiter and Percy, 1991),while the purchase of “feel” products is driven by the need for

more emotional wants and affective motives (Holbrook and

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

15

Schindler, 1994). Certain benefits may be considered

“prototypical” and essential for a specific product category(Loken and Ward, 1990). For instance, copying machine,which is generally considered as a “think” product, are boughtmainly for utilitarian reasons while perfume, which could be

considered as a “feel” product, are more often driven bysymbolic motives. However, very often there is no clear-cutdistinction between “think” and “feel” products. Forinstance, when purchasing a vehicle, consumers would focus

not only on the safety benefits, but also on performance,sensory satisfaction and/or psychological fulfillment.The above discussions rationalize our attempt to develop a

benefit-based multi-dimensional brand image construct (delRio et al., 2001; Low and Lamb, 2000). In that, each brandimage dimension corresponding to consumers’ various needsis represented as a member of the higher order category,wherein the benefit-based brand associations are the building

blocks of this higher order category representation. Thereforewe propose a first research proposition:

P1. The construct of brand image, which is composed ofbrand associations, should reflect multiple

dimensionalities corresponding to consumers’functional, symbolic and sensory needs.

National characteristics affecting brand image

National cultural differences could contribute to two types ofbetween-country differences in brand image:1 the impact of the brand image on subsequent consumer

behavior; and2 the definition of the image dimension, i.e. the brand

associations that load on each image dimensions.

Figures 1 and 2 highlight these two perspectives respectively.

Using image as the first-order independent variable, existingcross-national consumer research (e.g. Kale, 1995; Roth,1995) often centers on the first between-country difference toassess the affect of brand image appeal on consumer response,

i.e. g in Figure 1. It is noted that when brand imagedimension is a latent construct containing multiple indicators,measurement equivalence of the image dimension becomesthe prerequisite to examine national differences.However, very often that brand image is only partially

equivalently defined across countries because national andcultural variations may influence how consumers organize and

perceive a brand image (Belk and Pollay, 1985). As is shownin Figure 2, although there are considerable overlaps incertain brand association between countries A and B, onlypartial equivalents exist. In line with Figure 2, our studyfocuses on the rather fundamental between-countrydifferences with an attempt to answer the question aswhether national characteristic differences reflect differencesin the way that brand knowledge is organized in memory.The representation of the factor structure of brand image in

terms of the correspondences and the sequence of the factorsextracted is not absolute equivalence. For instance, the firstfactor in country A conveys associations 1, 2, 3 and 4.However, only associations 1, 3, and 4 are related as thesecond factor in country B. Also, the associations constructedin the third factor in country B are similar to the combinationof the associations contained in the third and forth factors incountry A. Image factor (i.e. dimension) could be determinedby several types of interrelationships among brandassociations that are similar to the interdependences amongproduct attributes (Yi, 1989). Figure 3 illustratesinterrelationships comprising of a set of associations thatmeasures the same concept or leads to a brand perception.For example, brand associations such as “exciting”, “fun to

drive” and “good acceleration” could be interrelated inrepresenting the same image dimension because they arelikely to lead to a congruent “sensory” perception. The secondtype of interrelationship contains causally related brandassociations. For instance, if consumers believe that aprestigious car will consume more gasoline, then “prestige”and “fuel economy” will be negatively related in forming animage dimension. Similarly, the “technology level of a car” willbe negatively related to “good value for money” if consumersreckon that the investment of latest technology increases thecost. Finally, another type of interrelationship results fromattributing to a common antecedent. For instance, consumers’perceptions of “prestige” and “latest technology” could beinterrelated because of their relationships with a commonantecedent, i.e. the styling of a car.The representation of the factor structure of brand image is

mainly affected by the advertising message delivered and themeaning interpreted by consumers, which have often beenassumed to reflect variations among cultures (Tse et al., 1989)and industrial environments (Nevett, 1992). To the degreethat brand image varies in response to the needs and values

Figure 1 Between country differences I – effects of brand image on the subsequent consumer behaviour

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

16

held by the consumer within a culture, we should be able to

observe evidence of national-specific meaning (i.e. number

and nature of the image dimension) that relates to these

particular needs and values. Two important national

influences on the brand image are national cultural- and

economic factors. These will now be discussed.A country’s cultural factors have frequently been related to

consumption, owing to cultural differences between countries

being more resilient and enduring compared with other

environmental characteristics (Malhotra et al., 1998). Many

studies have addressed the important aspect of culture in

relation to consumer behavior (e.g. Lynn et al., 1993;

Steenkamp et al., 1999; Madden et al., 2000). However, little

empirical evidence exists to show how these differences in

cultures affect consumer’s brand image perception.One manifestation of culture is through symbolic systems,

where shared meanings and symbols become publicly

verifiable as belonging to a specific culture (Rohner, 1984).

Products and their related brand structures therefore become

important to individuals due to their ability to carry and

communicate cultural meaning (Belk, 1984; McEnally and de

Chernatony, 1999). Relying on Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions, we now illustrate how cultural factors might

affect the sequence of the factors/dimensions extracted by a

specific national sample. Hofstede’s (1983, 1991) influential

work on cross-cultural value systems identifies three aspects of

culture that could be related to consumer needs and brand

image: power distance, uncertainty avoidance and

individualism. It is suggested that the kind of image

dimension the consumer focuses on when perceiving a

brand is reflective of cultural differences in value emphasis

(Roth, 1995; Kale, 1995). First, high power distance relates

to a higher tendency toward privileged position, suggesting

that buyers are more likely to focus on symbolic appeals.

Second, high degree of uncertainty avoidance dimension

relates to a higher reluctance in accepting new products and

risk, suggesting that marketers should reduce buyers’

perceived risk by highlighting utilitarian satisfaction. Finally,

high individualism relates to a strong hedonistic motive in

consumption, suggesting that products positioned to

emphasize the distinctive sensory appeal are likely to attract

a significant attention from consumers (Roth, 1995; Kale,

1995).In the same vein, the interrelationship of the corresponding

brand associations is also reflective of cultural differences.

Depending on how a car is perceived and interpreted by

consumers, “good styling” could be causally related to “fuel

economic” and “good acceleration” in one country or could

be attributed to “latest technology” or “sporty” in another.

Similarly, “fun to drive” and “exciting” might be converged

for being semantically correlated in one country but be

diverged in the other. Furthermore, “perceived quality” might

be more likely to be associated with symbolic related

associations such as “prestige” and “luxurious features” in

countries that are characterized at a rather higher level of

individualism. In contrast, “perceived quality” could be

associated with utilitarian related associations such as

“reliability”, “durability” and “safety” in countries that are

Figure 2 Between country differences II – factoral structure of image dimension

Figure 3 Types of interrelationships among brand associations

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

17

characterized at a rather higher level of uncertainty avoidance(Figure 3). Therefore we propose the second researchproposition:

P2. The factor structures of brand image in terms of thecorresponding brand associations and the sequence ofthe factors/dimensions is reflective of nation’s cultures.

National economic factors may also affect the factor structureof brand image. The assumption underlying consumerisationis that markets grow with affluence and industrialisation, frombeing manufacturer and product oriented towards beingconsumer oriented, and brand driven (Darley and Johnson,1993). In low consumerized markets, a brand’s role is centredon product difference, i.e. utilitarian or functionality related.A brand’s role changes however when a market moves towardshigh consumerization, with a brand becoming imbued withpersonality, i.e. symbolic and sensory appeal (e.g. Solomon,1999; Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Therefore, consumers fromless developed countries will be more likely to focus on theutilitarian image dimension. In contrast, consumers fromdeveloped countries will be more likely focusing on non-utilitarian image, i.e. symbolic and sensory appeal (Goodyear,1996).Level of economic development also provides implications

regarding the correspondence of brand associationsunderlying each image dimension. A country’s economicdevelopment, which is related to its infrastructuredevelopment and its consumer’s intellectual level, has aneffect on the effectiveness of communication strategy. A moreadvanced infrastructure results in the greater exchange ofproduct information, alternatively the receivers’ intellectimproves their comprehension of message received. As such,it is posited that consumers from developed countries tend tobe able to develop a complete set of associations. Thus, thethird research proposition can be proposed:

P3. The sequence of the factors/dimensions and thecorresponding brand associations is reflective ofnation’s level of economic development.

An empirical application

We present results by applying the proposed benefit-basedmulti-dimensional image construct to automobile brands fortwo reasons related to product feature. First, we are interestedin exploring image dimension for a product for which bothutilitarian and non-utilitarian motives are a motivating factor.Second, we are interested in a product category in whichmajority of brands have a well-established image ininternational markets.

Description of the existing data set employed

An existing data set owned by MORPACE International, amulti-national research firm, was employed. Data coveringthe top 20 automobile markets consisting of 4,320 eligiblenew car owners during September-October 1997, provided agood representation of the global car market. In consideringheterogeneity within countries and the fact that consumers inmetropolitan areas are believed to be more knowledgeableabout global brands (Hassan and Katsanis, 1994), 70metropolitan areas, presented in Table I, were selected.Although these samples might not be representative of their

respective countries populations, they are relativelyhomogeneous within a matched-samples criterion.

Respondents were selected according to being resident in a

metropolitan area and having bought a new automobileduring the past six months (July to December 1996). A list of

brands that were used as stimuli for brand recognition, based

on which brand associations were measured, is summarized

below. (Note: brand names were read out by the interviewers

based on rotating sequence and only brands that respondentwas aware of were measured for brand associations.)

Corporate brand. BMW;. Chrysler;. Daewoo;. Daihatsu;. Fiat;. Ford;. GM;. Honda;. Hyundai;. Izuzu;. Kia;. Mazda;. Mercedes;. Mitsubishi;. Nissan;. Peugeot;. Porsche;. Renault;. Saab;. Samsung;. Subaru;. Suzuki;

Table I Countries/metropolitan areas surveyed

Countries

Market

size (%) Metropolitan areas

Australia 1.5 Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane

Belgium 1.0 Brussels, Liege, Charleois, Antwerp, Gent

Brazil 4.3 Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte

Canada 2.6 Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

China 3.1 Beijing, Shanghai

UK 5.1 London, Birmingham, Manchester

France 5.6 Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles

Germany 8.3 Nurnberg, Leipzig, Bochum, Hamburg

India 1.6 Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore

Italy 4.3 Rome, Milan, Bari

Japan 15.5 Fukuoka, Tokyo, Osaka, Sapporo

South Korea 3.7 Seoul, Kyunggi

Mexico 0.8 Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterey

The Netherlands 1.2 Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague

Russia 2.9 Moscow, St Petersburg, Nizhni-Novgorod

Spain 2.4 Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, Bilbao

Taiwan 1.1 Taipei, Kaohsiung

Thailand 1.2 Bangkok, Chiangmai, Haad Yai

Turkey 0.6 Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir

USA 33.5 Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis,

Philadelphia, Atlanta, St Louis

Total 100

Note: Market size is based on the proportion of new vehicle sales acrosscountries in 1996

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

18

. Toyota;

. Volkswagen; and

. Volvo.

Individual brand. Acura;. Alfa Romeo;. Buick;. Cadillac;. Chevrolet;. Citroen;. Dodge;. Eagle;. GMC;. Holden;. Infiniti;. Jaguar;. Jeep;. Lancia;. Land Rover;. Lexus;. Lincoln;. Mercury;. Oldsmobile;. Opel;. Plymouth;. Pontiac;. Rover;. Seat;. Saturn;. Talbot; and. Vauxhall.

A multi-stage sampling procedure consisting of three stageswas employed by MORPACE. In the initial stage, sample size

in each country was determined arbitrarily: samples of 200were decided for each country with the exception of Japan

(300) and the USA (370) because of the larger sales volume inthese two countries. In subsequent stages, the sample size

assigned in each country was divided into mutually exclusive

and collectively exhaustive sub-groups based on the proportionof population in each metropolitan area within a country. In

each area, the sample size within a given category was thendetermined according to the proportion of automobile sales

volume in terms of makes and segments. In the final stage,

instead of being drawn on probability, individual samples wererecruited through the intercept method given that the access of

a complete sampling frame is not feasible.Prior to conducting the main survey, focus group

discussions were undertaken in each country. Two focusgroups were administered (seven to nine participants,

recruited on the basis of a well-defined target market, per

group) in each country using qualitative techniques, i.e. freeassociation task and projective approach. This method was

conducted to offset the limitation of the free-elicitationmethod that generates low quantities of elicited thoughts.

Participants indicated the desirability and importance ofnumerous attributes, with the associations mentioned by the

majority selected as salient beliefs about automobiles. A total

of 14 associations were selected: acceleration, dealer services,exciting, fuel economy, fun to drive, latest technology, luxury

features, made to last, perceived high quality, prestigious,reliable, safe in accidents, speed, sporty, styling and value for

money.

A questionnaire and a series of brand associations were then

developed on the basis of the findings from the focus group

discussions. An extensive cross-national pre-test in each

surveyed metropolitan area was conducted before fieldwork

conduction. The questionnaires were than amended

according to post pilot study feedback from each country

and then operationalized into scale items. Questionnaires

were initially constructed in English. Subjects in Australia, the

UK, Canada and the USA, where English is the official

language, received an English version of the questionnaire.

Bilingual personnel who were fluent in English translated

questionnaires for the remaining countries into local

languages. The questionnaires were then back translated

into English to ensure accuracy and enhance translation

equivalence (Douglas and Craig, 1983).

Measures

Unlike the general probabilistic conception, attitude and

beliefs were measured as dichotomous and qualitative

judgments in the employed data set. That is, a value of 1 or

0 had been assigned to the probability that an object has or

does not have a specific benefit. Although reducing the scale

of association to presence/absence decreased analytical

sensitivity and limited analytical options, the use of a

dichotomous measure had practical implications for data

collection. At times, researchers found their respondents too

naive or too impatient to make fine judgments or to respond

in terms of a continuous scale for a long list of stimuli. In its

application in cross-national research, the use of binary or

dichotomous scales has been proposed for measuring

consumers’ perceptions and preferences in developing

countries (Malhotra, 1988). Nevertheless, we note that the

convenience of data collection is obtained at the expense

depth information.

Result of the empirical analysis

Examining the formation of brand image at globe level

We explore the dimensionality of brand image at a pooled-

data level, where the global sample, comprising all countries

and brands, are analyzed. For each brand, respondents

indicated whether the association appropriately described the

brand[1]. Principal component analysis (PCA) approach was

employed to explore the dimensionality since nominal scales

were used for data collection. The rotation method used is

Varimax with Kaiser normalization, which is the most

commonly used rotating method for orthogonal rotation

(i.e. to keep the rotated factors uncorrelated). The first five

components having Eigenvalues larger than one were

extracted from the global sample. Further, matrix pattern of

components (i.e. correspondence of brand associations

underlying each image dimension) provided aids in naming

the five dimensions extracted (Tables II and III).As illustrated, based on interpretability criteria, four brand

image dimensions underlying brand associations were

identified over the global sample. Dimensions identified were:. the symbolic dimension including “prestigious” and

“luxury features”;. the sensory dimension including “exciting”, “good

acceleration” and “speed and fun to drive”;. the economic dimension consisting of “good fuel

economy”, “dealer service” and “good value for money”;

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

19

. the utilitarian dimension including “reliable”, “made to

last” and “safe in accidents”; and. the futuristic dimension consisting of “latest technology”

and “good styling”.

The presence of an economic dimension, which reflects the

consumer’s economic need, is a supplement to the suggested

product concepts (Park et al., 1986). The idea of treating an

economic dimension as a distinct dimension is supported by

Doyle (1989) who suggested that one consumer need is likely

to be economic and functional (other than emotional and

psychological). “Styling” and “latest technology” that

underlie the fifth dimension are the two important product

futures specifically associated with automobile brands but are

seldom explored previously.

Examining the formation of brand image at nation level

We extracted image dimensions through PCA for each

individual market with the objective to assess the applicability

of the dimensional structure uncovered above in different

cultural contexts. Specifically, we are interested in the

questions:. To what extent will the brand image perceived by

consumers in a particular country also be organized

around the five dimensions? and. To what extent that culture-specific brand image construct

will emerge?

More importantly, we focus on identifying the potential

impact of national characteristics on brand image in terms of

the relative importance of image dimension and the

correspondence of brand association.Tables IV and V summarize the results of principal

components and the related KMO and Bartlett’s test of

Sphericity derived from the country-by-country analyses. As

is shown in Table V, the analyses are appropriate (with KMO

value between 0.5 and 1.0) across all of the national samples

except India (0.47). Table IV indicates that while the four

image dimensions identified from global sample remained

across the majority of national samples, the correspondence of

brand associations underlying each image dimensions varied.

“Perceived high quality” was associated either with the

symbolic (Australia, the UK, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan,

Turkey and the USA), utilitarian (Belgium, France, Germany,

Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands and Thailand) or non-

economic (Spain) associations across nations. Although

“value for money” was associated to economic related

associations for the majority of samples (e.g. Australia, the

UK, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Mexico, The

Netherlands, Spain, Taiwan and Turkey) and negatively

related to symbolic associations (Belgium, Mexico, Russia

and the USA). However, “value for money” was also found to

be positively associated to “good acceleration and speed” in

China, “good styling” in France and South Korea, and had

insignificant loading value in Brazil and Japan. Quality and

value for money were evaluative attributes at higher level of

abstraction, which provided summary indicators of overall

brand evaluation. As such, both of them could be the

aggregated product of brand associations related to different

Table III Results of PCA using global sample

Image dimension

Symbolic Experiential/sensory Economic Utilitarian Futuristic

Luxury features 0.707

Prestigious 0.697

High quality

Fun to drive 0.679

Exciting 0.651

Good acceleration and speed 0.493

Good dealer service 0.627

Good fuel economy 0.535

Good value for money 0.493

Sporty 20.474

Reliable 0.615

Durable 0.574

Safety in accident 0.566

Latest techonology 0.705

Good styling 0.625

Table II Eigenvalues using global sample

Initial eigenvalue Extraction sums of squared loading

Component Total Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage Total Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage

1 1.452 9.683 9.683 1.452 9.683 9.683

2 1.37 9.131 18.814 1.37 9.131 18.814

3 1.136 7.575 26.389 1.136 7.575 26.389

4 1.055 7.035 33.424 1.055 7.035 33.424

5 1.002 6.677 40.101 1.002 6.677 40.101

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

20

Table

IVsu

mm

ary

ofPC

Aon

aco

untr

y-by

-cou

ntry

basi

s

Ben

efitassociations

Componen

t

1

Componen

t

2

Componen

t

3

Componen

t

4

Componen

t

5

Componen

t

6

Componen

t

7

Luxuriousfeatures

AU

L/C

AN

/CH

N/J

PN/

(MEX

)/R

US/

TWN

/TH

A/

USA

/(IN

D)

BEL

/(B

RA

)/SK

FRN

/ITY

/NET

/SPN

GB

R/G

RM

TUR

Prestige

AU

L/G

BR

/CA

N/C

HN

/

JPN

/(M

EX)/

RU

S/TW

N/

THA

/USA

BEL

/SK

/TU

RFR

N/IT

Y/(

MEX

)/N

ETG

RM

/SPN

BR

A

Highquality

AU

L/B

EL/G

BR

/CA

N/F

RA

/

NET

/SPN

/TW

N/U

SA

GR

M/S

K/T

UR

JPN

/TH

AIT

Y/M

EXC

HN

/NET

Reliable

BEL

/FR

A/N

ET/IN

DG

RM

/ITY

/RU

SB

RA

/CA

N/S

K/T

UR

/U

SAA

UL/

CH

N/T

WN

GB

R/(

JPN

)/M

EX/(

SPN

)/

THA

Durable

BEL

/FR

A/N

ETG

RM

/ITY

/RU

SB

RA

/CA

N/S

K/T

UR

/USA

AU

L/C

HN

/JPN

/MEX

/

SPN

/TW

N/T

HA

GB

R

Safety

inacciden

tB

EL/F

RA

/NET

GR

M/IT

Y/R

US/

SKB

RA

/CA

N/M

EX/S

K/U

SAA

UL/

JPN

/SPN

/TW

N/T

UR

GB

R/C

HN

Gooddea

lerservice

ITY

/(SP

N)

AU

L/B

RA

/(C

AN

)/TH

A/

(IN

D)

BEL

/GB

R/G

RM

/JPN

/TW

NFR

A/R

US/

SKB

EL/(

TUR

)N

ET/(

TUR

)C

HN

Goodfeuleconomy

(CA

N)/

ITY

/(JP

N)/

MEX

/

(SPN

)

AU

L/B

RA

/NET

/TH

A/

(TU

R)/

IND

GB

R/C

HN

/GR

M/T

WN

FRA

/SK

/(U

SA)

BEL

RU

S

Goodvalueformoney

(CH

N)/

ITY

/MEX

/(R

US)

/

(SPN

)/(U

SA)/

IND

AU

L/(B

EL)/

(CA

N)/

NET

/

THA

GB

R/(

CH

N)/

GR

M/

TWN

(MEX

)/SK

/(TU

R)

FRA

Funto

drive

BR

A/G

RM

/SK

/TU

RG

BR

/CA

N/C

HN

/FR

A/

JPN

/MEX

/SPN

/TW

N/

USA

AU

L/R

US/

THA

BEL

/BR

A/IT

Y

Exciting

BR

A/G

RM

/SK

/TU

RG

BR

/CH

N/F

RA

/JPN

/

MEX

/SPN

/TW

N/U

SA

AU

L/B

EL/R

US/

THA

CA

N/N

ET

Goodaccelerationan

dspee

dB

RA

/GR

M/S

K/T

UR

(GB

R)/

FRA

/JPN

/TW

N/

IND

BEL

/CH

N/M

EX/T

HA

CA

N/IT

Y/(

RU

S)/U

SAA

UL/

FRA

/NET

/SPN

Sporty

GR

M/(

ITY

)/SK

GB

R/C

AN

/MEX

/SPN

/

USA

AU

L/(J

PN)/

(TW

N)

NET

(BR

A)/

FRA

/TU

RC

HN

/RU

S

Latest

techonology

THA

MEX

/SPN

/IND

BR

A/G

BA

/USA

AU

L/C

AN

/CH

N/G

RM

/

(ITY

)/JP

N/N

ET/R

US/

SK/

TWN

/TU

R

Goodstyling

BEL

/GB

A/(

CH

N)/

MEX

/

(TU

R)/

USA

AU

L/C

AN

/GR

M/J

PN/

NET

/SK

/SPN

/TW

N

FRA

RU

S

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

21

image dimensions depending on how they were interpreted by

consumers in each market.Overall, the correspondence of associations underlying each

brand image dimension was weaker for less developed

countries such as Brazil, China, India, Russia and Turkey.

For instance, sensory dimension was formed with the

correspondence of “exciting”, “fun to drive”, “good

acceleration and speed” and “sporty” for British, German

and South Korean samples but only “exciting” and “fun to

drive” for Chinese and Russian samples. In these countries,

more image dimensions that consisted of fewer brand

associations were identified. In contrast, for Germany and

the USA, where the market system is well developed, the top

four dimensions explained 37.42 percent and 36.68 percent of

variance, compared with 31.50 percent and 32.40 percent for

Indian and Chinese samples respectively (Table VI). The

divergence of brand association in these countries could be

partly attributed to marketers’ attitudes and consumers’

characteristics. Kaynak and Hudanah (1985) suggest that

company executives in the less developed countries had little

interest in building brand image as a marketing management

function. From the consumers’ perspective, low rates of

literacy and per capita income in these countries tended to

hinder the marketing practice of companies.Next, the relative importance of image dimension was

examined based on the sequence of components (i.e.

dimensions) extracted. This indicated the relative weight of

emphasis on each dimension in forming brand image. It was

found that, across all non-European countries except Brazil,

South Korea and Turkey, the first dimension was dominated

by symbolic or the combination of negatively related symbolic

and economic associations (Canadian, Japanese and Mexican

samples). This finding suggested that symbolic appeal is the

most important image dimension that differentiates one brand

from the others regardless of cultural and economic

difference. The inclusion of two negatively correlated

associations in one dimension introduces a trade-off

between them: for instance, a brand that is positioned as

having “luxury features” might not be related to “fuel

economy”. In practice, a pricing strategy usually reflected

economic appeals at the lower end and symbol/status appeals

at the higher end of the price continuum.

There were also differences among European countries.Among which, the three countries that had their utilitariandimension extracted as the first factor were Belgium, France

and The Netherlands. According to Hofstede’s (1983, 1991)country rankings on the basis of the cultural dimensions,

these three countries exhibited a moderate to high level ofuncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1983, 1991), suggestingthat appeals to a product’s functionality (i.e. the utilitarian

dimension) may induce favorable consumer response in thesecountries (Kale, 1995). Alternatively, the two Europeancountries having their economic dimension extracted as the

first factor were Italy and Spain. The relative larger weight oneconomic dimensions might be attributed to the fact that

Spain and Italy are characterized at a higher level ofuncertainty avoidance and lower level of economicdevelopment among European countries. Finally, the first

dimensions extracted from British and German samples weresymbolic and sensory respectively.

Conclusions

This paper has aimed to explore the factorial structure ofautomobile brand image in the context of a cross-national

study. Brand image has been conceptualized with a set ofbenefit-based brand associations that reflect its complex andabstract structural properties. The proposed benefit-based

multi-dimensional brand image construct has been examinedwith the use of data collected in an existing survey covering 20

nations. We have also sought to reach three research aims.In line with our first research proposition, this study has

provided empirical evidence that supports the applicability of

multiple brand image dimensions corresponding to theconsumer’s sensory, utilitarian, symbolic and economic

needs at the global level. The image dimensions uncoverednot only cognitive attitude components (i.e., utilitarian andeconomic dimensions) but also affective components (i.e.

sensory and symbolic dimensions). This finding contributesto the understanding of the underlying image dimensions ofdurable goods and provides a conceptual basis for linking

brand image and consumer needs. The brand imagedimensions verified in our study could serve to guide

marketing managers in charting global strategies for theirproducts.

Table V KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity

AUS BEL BRA GRB CAN CHN FRA GRM IND ITA

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure

of sampling adequacy

0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.52 0.58 0.61 0.47 0.59

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3764.70 2735.79 2249.83 2418.51 3157.34 1301.22 2759.64 4020.78 654.97 2151.67

df 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00

Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

JAN MEX NET RUS SK SPN TWN THA TUR USA

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure

of sampling adequacy

0.59 0.58 0.57 0.55 0.59 0.55 0.59 0.58 0.53 0.65

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2035.58 1487.17 2946.53 1520.15 1879.05 1725.95 3448.73 1855.33 1076.28 8115.43

df 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00

Sig. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notes: AUS: Australia; BEL: Belgium; BRA: Brazil; GRB: Great Britain; CAN: Canada; CHN: China; FRA: France; GRM: Germany; IND: India; ITA: Italy; JAN: Japan;MEX: Mexico; NET: Netherlands; RUS: Russia; SK: South Korea; SPN: Spain; TWN: Taiwan; THA: Thailand; TUR: Turkey; USA: United States of America

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

22

Table VI Summary of initial eigenvalue

Initial eigenvalue Initial eigenvalue

Component Total

Percentage of

variance

Cumulative

percentage Component Total

Percentage of

variance

Cumulative

percentage

Australia Belgium1 1.69 11.265 11.265 1 1.512 10.082 10.082

2 1.356 9.038 20.304 2 1.45 9.665 19.747

3 1.196 7.971 28.274 3 1.219 8.125 27.872

4 1.175 7.836 36.11 4 1.123 7.486 35.359

5 1.043 6.95 43.061 5 1.024 6.824 42.182

Brazil Canada1 1.549 10.327 10.327 1 1.65 11.002 11.002

2 1.382 9.211 19.538 2 1.434 9.558 20.56

3 1.18 7.87 27.408 3 1.158 7.722 28.283

4 1.067 7.116 34.523 4 1.033 6.889 35.171

5 1.038 6.918 41.442 5 1.011 6.739 41.91

6 1.019 6.793 48.235

China France1 1.392 9.281 9.281 1 1.569 10.459 10.459

2 1.269 8.462 17.743 2 1.403 9.352 19.811

3 1.107 7.381 25.123 3 1.225 8.166 27.978

4 1.092 7.279 32.402 4 1.154 7.692 35.669

5 1.085 7.232 39.634 5 1.04 6.931 42.601

6 1.029 6.857 46.491 6 1.008 6.719 49.32

7 1.001 6.67 53.161

Germany India1 1.69 11.264 11.264 1 1.228 8.185 8.185

2 1.488 9.921 21.185 2 1.199 7.991 16.176

3 1.269 8.462 29.647 3 1.17 7.797 23.973

4 1.166 7.775 37.422 4 1.128 7.523 31.497

5 1.041 6.939 44.361 5 1.106 7.376 38.873

6 1.042 6.95 45.823

7 1.005 6.701 52.523

Italy Japan1 1.535 10.236 10.236 1 1.443 9.623 9.623

2 1.367 9.115 19.351 2 1.342 8.947 18.57

3 1.194 7.96 27.311 3 1.117 7.449 26.019

4 1.161 7.74 35.051 4 1.059 7.06 33.079

5 1.026 6.838 41.889 5 1.029 6.857 39.936

Mexico The Netherlands1 1.453 9.684 9.684 1 1.519 10.123 10.123

2 1.345 8.968 18.653 2 1.393 9.285 19.409

3 1.14 7.602 26.255 3 1.176 7.84 27.249

4 1.096 7.304 33.559 4 1.099 7.33 34.579

5 1.023 6.822 40.381 5 1.083 7.219 41.798

6 1.014 6.76 48.558

Russia South Korea1 1.418 9.452 9.452 1 1.578 10.523 10.523

2 1.349 8.99 18.443 2 1.357 9.044 19.567

3 1.134 7.561 26.004 3 1.192 7.947 27.514

4 1.097 7.316 33.319 4 1.153 7.684 35.198

5 1.058 7.054 40.374 5 1.029 6.861 42.058

6 1.036 6.905 47.279

7 1.003 6.684 53.963

(continued)

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

23

Our study also shows that the factorial structure of brand

image – in terms of the relative importance of the image

dimension, the correspondence of the specific associations

underlying each dimension, and the interrelationships among

the underlying associations – vary across markets. These

results are consistent with our second and third research

propositions that the factor structure of brand image reflects a

nation’s culture and its level of economic development.

Consumers from well-developed markets such as Australia,

the UK, Canada, Germany and the USA tend to have rather

convergent brand associations underlying the various brand

image dimensions. In contrast, consumers from less

developed countries tend to be reliant on a single

association. Where cultural effect is concerned, the symbolic

dimension is generally the most important image dimension

that differentiates one brand from another regardless of

cultural differences. However, in Belgium, France and The

Netherlands, which are rated with a moderate to high level of

uncertainty according to Hofstede’s (1991) country rankings,

the utilitarian dimension is the most important.The findings of this study highlight the importance of

national culture to the factorial structure of brand image

perceptions. These findings are important from a theoretical

perspective because they may help us understand why the

underlying benefits of image in each dimension are differently

defined and why certain image appeals are not effective in

some countries. It is also important from an applied

perspective, because the key to establishing a successful

international strategy lies in understanding the effectiveness of

marketing programs in different markets. Understanding the

similarities or differences of the factorial structure of brand

image across the globe facilitates the formation of a successful

global image strategy. By exploring brand image structure at

the global level and determining the relative importance of

image dimensions and their underlying brand associations at

the national level, a multi-national firm may reach global

consumers by employing the universal appeal (i.e. the super-

ordinate image dimension) of its products while attracting

local consumers by supplementing the universal appeal with

the specific focus (i.e. correspondence of associations) of the

products.Furthermore, from the PCA results, the type of

interrelationship among associations – i.e. associations are

causally related, associations are related by attributing to a

common antecedent, or associations are related for

representing the same meaning – can be explored. The

specific interrelationships among the corresponding

associations underlying an image dimension serve as an

effective lever in developing the communication message: a

scenario – where the message relevant to the consumer’s

cognitive representations of brand associations is delivered –

can be created along with the supplementary information

regarding the cultural profile of the particular country for the

local market. A global brand image that delivers a universal

appeal while highlighting specific emphases for local markets

would be able to maximize turnover in a globally competitive

environment.Finally, as most major consumer behavior theories have

been developed and tested in the USA, very little attention

has been devoted to investigating the validity of the theories in

a cross-national context (Lee and Green, 1991). The results

derived from the 20 diverse nations in the present study,

which is considered to be substantive compared with the

existing cross-national research, not only enhance our

understanding of brand image structure but also provide a

strong test of the empirical generalizability of automobile

brand image dimensionality in a global context. As the

globalization process quickens and more non-Western

Table VI

Initial eigenvalue Initial eigenvalue

Component Total

Percentage of

variance

Cumulative

percentage Component Total

Percentage of

variance

Cumulative

percentage

Spain Taiwan1 1.479 9.857 9.857 1 1.584 10.562 10.562

2 1.35 9.001 18.858 2 1.504 10.025 20.587

3 1.147 7.647 26.505 3 1.176 7.841 28.428

4 1.074 7.159 33.664 4 1.158 7.72 36.148

5 1.043 6.953 40.618 5 1.082 7.211 43.359

Thailand Turkey1 1.535 10.231 10.231 1 1.329 8.861 8.861

2 1.24 8.267 18.498 2 1.248 8.323 17.184

3 1.143 7.618 26.116 3 1.126 7.506 24.691

4 1.116 7.437 33.553 4 1.064 7.095 31.786

5 1.057 7.049 40.602 5 1.033 6.887 38.673

6 1.016 6.772 45.445

United Kingdom USA1 1.565 10.435 10.435 1 1.764 11.761 11.761

2 1.365 9.097 19.532 2 1.525 10.166 21.927

3 1.191 7.939 27.471 3 1.14 7.601 29.527

4 1.123 7.484 34.954 4 1.073 7.151 36.679

5 1.073 7.154 42.109

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

24

countries join the global market, examining the cross-national

applicability of consumer behavior constructs is becoming

increasingly important.

Limitation and extensions

Although the findings drawn from the diverse nations suggest

that the cultural dimension and the level of economic

development of a country might be related to the importance

of image dimension and the formation of brand associations,

stronger statistical evidence that reveals the significant effect

of national factors on brand image are desirable. In addition,

as with any empirical study, this research inevitably has its

limitations, which presents opportunities for further research:. extensions of the present framework to other product

categories;. extensions of the national factors;. extensions of the brand associations; and. measurement improvement.

First, as much of the existing brand image research pertains to

consumer goods (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park and

Srinivasan, 1994) industrial goods and services would be an

interesting area for extension; the generalizability of the

results to other product categories could then be explored.

Second, future research could investigate other typologies of

national characteristics, such as the one developed by

Schwartz (1994), or it could extend the current framework

by including the Confucian dynamic dimension. Apart from

cultural factors, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, automobile import

regulations and the general predisposition of a population

towards imported brands are other possible factors affecting

consumers’ perception of brand image. Where brand

difference is concerned, the length of time that the brand

has been in the market, the competitive conditions under

which the brands are operating, advertising and marketing

expenditures, and the positioning strategies applied in each

case might also affect the formations of brand image

perception. For instance, Kirmani et al. (1999) concluded

that consumers perceive prestige brands differently than

functional brands in that prestige brands are more closely

connected to a consumer’s self-concept. However, the

aggregated analyses of this study have not taken into

account brand differences. Third, the set of brand

associations could be expanded to include users’ imagery,

given that brands could be used to express consumers’

personalities and characteristics, and both hold distinct

meanings to consumers. The interrelationships between

these extensive image dimensions, which represent various

associations, could shed some light on the complexity of

brand image structure. All these potential factors could be

considered in future cross-national studies so that the

universal validity of brand image research may be achieved.

Further, broadening the scope of information would afford

better insight into key differences that determine the

importance of the image dimension and the structures of

associations.Finally, with any empirical research, measurement

improvements are possible and important for future

research. For instance, cumulatively, the top five

components explained only about 40 per cent of variance.

This might be due to the use of the dichotomous scale. If the

perception of brand association was measured using the

interval scale instead of the dichotomous scale, the percentage

of variance explained might be higher. Also, the relatively

poorer quality of PCA results for the less developed countries,

such as China, Russia, India and Turkey, might have

hampered further analysis. Specifically, the KMO and

Bartlett’s test of Sphericity for the Indian sample appeared

to be inappropriate. These might also have been caused by the

nature of the measurement scale used. Given that the data set

used in our study has been taken from a global survey

conducted by a research firm, the potential measurement

problem derived from the instrument used has been beyond

our control. Moreover, the employed data set is a little dated.

As such, whether the differences found between developed

and less developed countries are “real” and “reflective” of

current situation or not warrants further study. Therefore,

another direction for further research would be to conduct

tracking studies to monitor any possible changes.

Note

1 Unit of analysis used in this study was consumer’s

valuation for a specific brand, which results in the total

record number being 229,596 (4,320�53). However, note

that only the record in which evaluated brands that

respondents are aware of are included in the analysis. This

leads to a total valid case number of 155,210.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across productsand markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38,Spring, pp. 102-20.

Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluationof brand extension”, Journal of Marketing, pp. 27-41.

Aaker, J.L. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2001), “Consumptionsymbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spainbrand personality constructs”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.

Belk, R.W. (1984), “Cultural and historical differences inconcepts of self and their effects on attitudes toward havingand giving”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11,pp. 753-60.

Belk, R.W. and Pollay, R.W. (1985), “Images of ourselves: thegood life in twentieth century advertising”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 887-98.

Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functionalpositioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.

Claeys, C., Vanden Abeele, P. and Swinnen, A. (1995),“Consumers’ means-end chains for ‘think’ and ‘feel’products”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,Vol. 12, pp. 193-208.

Darley, W.K. and Johnson, D.M. (1993), “Cross-nationalcomparison of consumer attitudes toward consumerism infour developing countries”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs,Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 37-54.

del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “Theeffects of brand associations on consumer response”, TheJournal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4/5, pp. 410-26.

Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), “In search of brandimage: a foundation analysis”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 17, pp. 110-9.

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

25

Douglas, S.P. and Craig, S. (1983), “International marketingresearch”, in Douglas, S.P. and Craig, S. (Eds),International Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Doyle, P. (1989), “Building successful brands: the strategicoptions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5,pp. 77-95.

Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology ofAttitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.

Farquhar, P.H. and Herr, P.M. (1991), “The dual structure ofbrand associations”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds),Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in BuildingStrong Brands, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Goodyear, M. (1996), “Divided by a common language:diversity and deception in the world of global marketing”,Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 38 No. 2,pp. 105-22.

Hassan, S.S. and Katsanis, L.P. (1994), “Global marketsegmentation strategies and trends”, in Hassan, S.S. andKaynak, E. (Eds), Globalization of Consumer Markets:Structure and Strategies, International Business Press, NewYork, NY.

Haugtvedt, C., Leavitt, C. and Schneier, W.L. (1991),“Cognitive strength of established brands: memory,attitudinal, and structural approaches”, in Aaker, D.A.and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising:Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, LaurenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 247-61.

Hermans, S.E. and Kempen, H.J.G. (1998), “Moving cultures:the perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizingsociety”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53, pp. 1111-20.

Hofstede, G. (1983), “National cultural in four dimensions: aresearch-based theory of cultural differences amongnations”, International Studies of Management andOrganization, Vol. 13 No. 1-2, pp. 46-74.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultural and Organization: Software of theMind, McGraw-Hill, London.

Holbrook, M.B. and Schindler, R.M. (1994), “Age, sex, andattitude toward the past as predictors of consumers’aesthetic taste for cultural products”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 31, pp. 412-22.

Kale, S.H. (1995), “Grouping Euroconsumers: a culture-based clustering approach”, Journal of InternationalMarketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 35-48.

Kaynak, E. and Hudanah, B.E. (1985), “Operationalising therelationship between marketing and economicdevelopment: some insights from less-developedcountries”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 48-65.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, andmanaging consumer based brand equity”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.

Kirmani, A. and Zeithaml, V. (1991), “Advertising, perceivedquality, and brand image”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L.(Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role inBuilding Strong Brands, Laurence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ.

Kirmani, A., Sood, S. and Bridges, S. (1999), “Theownership effect in consumer responses to brand linestretches”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 88-101.

Lee, C. and Green, R.T. (1991), “Cross-cultural examinationof the Fishbein behavior intentions model”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 2nd quarter, pp. 289-305.

Levitt, T. (1983), “The globalization of markets”, HarvardBusiness Review, pp. 92-102.

Lienert, A. (1998), “Brand management: at the big three”,Management Review, pp. 53-7.

Loken, B. and Ward, J. (1990), “Alternative approaches tounderstanding the determinants of typicality”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 111-26.

Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), “The measurementand dimensionality of brand associations”, The Journal ofProduct and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 350.

Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G.M. and Harris, J. (1993), “Consumertipping: a cross-country study”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 19, December, pp. 478-88.

McEnally, M.R. and de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Theevolving nature of branding: consumer and managerialconsiderations”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2No. 6, pp. 5-16.

Madden, T.J., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000), “Managingimages in different cultures: a cross-national study of colormeanings and preferences”, Journal of InternationalMarketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 90-108.

Malhotra, N.K. (1988), “A methodology for measuringconsumer preference in developing countries”, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 52-66.

Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I. (1998),“Heterogeneity of regional trading blocs and globalmarketing strategies: a multicultural perspective”,International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 476-506.

Nevett, T. (1992), “Differences between American and Britishtelevision advertising explanations and implications”,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 61-71.

Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey-basedmethod for measuring and understanding brand equity andits extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31,May, pp. 271-88.

Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986),“Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 50, pp. 135-45.

Rohner, R.P. (1984), “Toward a conception of culture forcross-cultural psychology”, Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 111-38.

Rossiter, J. and Percy, L. (1991), “A better advertisingplanning grid”, Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 11-21.

Roth, M.S. (1995), “Effects of global market conditions onbrand image customization and brand performance”,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 55-75.

Schwartz, S. (1994), “Beyond individualism/collectivism: newcultural dimensions of values”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C.,Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds),Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method andApplication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85-119.

Solomon, M.R. (1999), “The value of status and the status ofvalue”, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: AFramework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London,pp. 63-84.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M.(1999), “A cross-national investigation into the individualand national cultural antecedents of consumerinnovativeness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 55-69.

Szymanski, D.M., Sundar, G.B. and Varadarajan, P.R.(1993), “Standardization versus adaptation ofinternational marketing strategy: an empiricalinvestigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-17.

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

26

Tse, D.K., Belk, R.W. and Zhou, N. (1989), “Becoming aconsumer society: a longitudinal and cross-cultural contentanalysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the people’sRepublic of China and Taiwan”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 457-72.

Whitelock, J. and Chung, D. (1989), “Cross-culturaladvertising: an empirical study”, International Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 291-310.

Wu, T.W., Day, R.L. and Mackay, D.B. (1988), “Consumerbenefits versus product attributes: an experimental test”,Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3,pp. 88-114.

Yi, Y. (1989), “An investigation of the structure ofexpectancy-value attitude and its implications”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 6,pp. 71-83.

Further reading

Goodyear, M. (1993), “Review the concept of brands andbranding”, Marketing and Research Today, pp. 75-9.

Executive summary

This executive summary has been provided to allow managers andexecutives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Thosewith a particular interest in the topic covered may then read thearticle in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensivedescription of the research undertaken and its results to get the fullbenefit of the material present.

Global image, local variation

The extension of free trade, the growth of important newmarkets such as China and the significance of globalizationhave given rise to a renewed interest in international

marketing. In particular, practitioners are concerned tounderstand the choices between standardization andlocalism – whether to apply a standard marketing approachregardless of region or to create individual campaigns withineach area.In reality, absolute standardization has never been

achievable since the nature of individual markets variessignificantly – language considerations, media availability andmuch else affects the specific marketing strategy. At the sametime the significance of major investment in branddevelopment drags the brand owner towards a morestandardized approach.The balance that needs striking is between a standardized

approach that overlooks important national differences and acustomized approach that neglects homogeneity and leads todiseconomies of scale. The right balance can make thedifference between success and failure in internationalmarketing.

Brand image and localismFor a brand to succeed we need it to have a set of consistentassociations and attributes. Regardless of the market we wantthe same responses to be forthcoming from target consumers.To work on an international scale these values need toapproach the universal – if the brand image becomes too tiedto a given culture there is the risk that our strategy – howeverwell adapted it is to local circumstances – will fail.

Hsieh and Lindridge characterize brand image as “. . .a set

of perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brandassociations held in the consumers memory.” Successfulglobal marketing requires consistency in the core brandassociations across international markets. It does not matter if

these associations are specific to a given culture so long as thatassociation remains positive. Positive national characteristicscan be used in this way so long as we recognize that overallimage of that country will affect consumer behaviour and is

beyond our control as brand marketers.Such consideration leads us to examine that actual nature

of associations and, especially, the extent to which they are

abstract. Abstraction draws away from utilitarianconsiderations, tends to be less market-specific and relatesmore closely to the consumer. Hsieh and Landridge commentthat “. . . associations at a higher level of abstraction such as

benefit and brand attitude, possess summarizing informationand have a closer relationship with the consumer’s self thando product attributes.”This distinction between the utilitarian product attribute

and the emotional or affective brand benefit is important andtakes us back to first principles – “sell the sizzle not thesausage”. The brand is intended for the consumer to use as a

projection of self not just as a means of distinguishing oneproduct from the next.

So why make local variations?Given that we are advised to devise brands that play touniversal emotional wants and affective needs, why then

should we not simply apply the precepts of standardizationand be done with it? Several considerations must be takenaccount of at this point. First, the emotions may be universalbut different cultures place different emphases on the

importance of such wants. Love may be all around us butits cultural bonds are considerable – the concept of emotionallove is shown very differently in a traditional religiouscommunity when compared to a bohemian New York suburb.As a result the same emotional construct may be portrayed

very differently in different cultures. Thus we arecommunicating the same emotional or affective message

using very different advertising executions. The core brandidentity is unaffected but the variation of message allows thesame impact on the consumer without cutting acrossprevailing local mores.

Brands are not one dimensionalThe description above is based on an assumption that a brand

contains one over-riding emotional or affective association.We know this not to be true – brands are complex constructscombining a variety of descriptors. We cannot describe abrand image using just one descriptor since a number of

dimensions are involved. These dimensions range from thepurely utilitarian through classic benefits to less tangibleemotional or affective associations. Since the brand image sitswith the consumer (it is created through the interaction of our

communications with the consumer’s thoughts) localconsiderations will always need to be factored into ourbrand communication.If – despite the universality of the core brand image – our

communication contains elements that jar with localsensitivities, preferences and economic needs, there is therisk that this universal brand image will be lost and the

consumer will reject the brand. Because of this, we need toexamine the local applicability of the various dimensions

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

27

making up the brand not just the applicability of the overallbrand image.Hsieh and Lindridge bring us back to an old debate –

customization versus standardization – via a different angle.The debate is not just about the economies of scale thatcome from standardized approaches or the greaterresponsiveness of localized methods but is about how auniversal brand concept plugs into the mind of the

coonsumer. It does so through the filter of local culture,mores and tradition and marketers ignore this at their risk.We need to construct a brand that works at a global level butalso to recognize that the particular structure of the resultingbrand image varies across markets.

(A precis of the article “Universal appeals with localspecifications”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

Universal appeals with local specifications

Ming-Huei Hsieh and Andrew Lindridge

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 14–28

28