Different local brands of soft drinks venturing in indian market

11: Global Marketing Management: PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Global Perspective: GLOBAL GATEWAYS

With their domestic market crowded with competitors, Yahoo!, Lycos, America Online (AOL), and others are rushing to establish their brands in Europe, Asia, and Latin America before local competitors can create dominant franchises of their own.

Recently, Lycos Europe, a joint venture between Lycos Inc. and Germany’s Bertelsmann AG, had its initial public offering on Germany’s Neuer Markt. Many more such offerings are expected, because U.S. Web executives and investors believe that the Internet will continue to grow faster abroad than at home. The U.S. share of Internet users fell from 42 percent in 1997 to 15 percent in 2008.

The battle has been hottest in Europe among the portals that serve as starting points for Web surfers looking for news, shopping, and search services. Yahoo! and Lycos each operates about two dozen foreign portals, most with native-language news, shopping links, and other content custom tailored to the local population. Lycos’s German site features tips on brewing beer at home and a program for calculating auto speeding fines. Yahoo!’s Singapore site offers real-time information on haze and smog in Southeast Asia. AOL has about a dozen international ventures, and Excite, the portal arm of At Home Corporation, has nine international partners.

The top U.S. players face tough homegrown competitors, who often have a better sense of local culture and Internet styles. In many countries, the dominant telephone companies offer portals, giving them a big leg up because customers are automatically sent to their home pages when they log on. Germany’s leading portal, T-Online, is run by Deutsche Telekom. In France, No. 1 Wanadoo is operated by France Telecom.

The U.S. portals risk being viewed as digital colonists trying to flex their muscles around the world, according to industry analysts. Many advise that American companies hoping to set up shop abroad are better served by forming partnerships with local outfits that understand the culture.

Sources: Jon G. Auerbach, Bernard Wysocki Jr., and Neal E. Boudette, “For U.S. Internet Portals, the Next Big Battleground Is Overseas,” The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2000, p. B1; Daekwan Kim, “The Internationalization of U.S. Portals: Does It Fit the Model of Internationalization?” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 21, no. 1 (2003), pp. 23–36; Euromonitor 2008.

Confronted with increasing global competition for expanding markets, multinational companies are changing their marketing strategies and altering their organizational structures. Their goals are to enhance their competitiveness and to ensure proper positioning to capitalize on opportunities in the global marketplace. Comprehensive decisions must be made regarding key strategic choices, such as standardization versus adaptation, concentration versus dispersion, and integration versus independence. Particularly as national borders become less meaningful, we see the rise of greater international corporate collaboration networks yielding new thinking about traditional concepts of competition and organization.

A recent study of North American and European corporations indicated that nearly 75 percent of the companies are revamping their business processes, that most have formalized strategic planning programs, and that the need to stay cost competitive was considered the most important external issue affecting their marketing strategies. Change is not limited to the giant multinationals but includes midsized and small firms as well.

In fact, the flexibility of a smaller company may enable it to reflect the demands of global markets and redefine its programs more quickly than larger multinationals. Acquiring a global perspective is easy, but the execution requires planning, organization, and a willingness to try new approaches—from engaging in collaborative relationships to redefining the scope of company operations.

This chapter discusses global marketing management, competition in the global marketplace, strategic planning, and alternative market-entry strategies. It also identifies the elements that contribute to an effective international or global organization.

Global Marketing Management

In the 1970s, the market segmentation argument was framed as “standardization versus adaptation.” In the 1980s, it was “globalization versus localization,” and in the 1990s, it was “global integration versus local responsiveness.” The fundamental question was whether the global homogenization of consumer tastes allowed global standardization of the marketing mix. The Internet revolution of the 1990s with its unprecedented global reach added a new twist to the old debate.

Even today, some companies are answering “global” as the way to go. For example, executives at Twix Cookie Bars tried out their first global campaign with a new global advertising agency, Grey Worldwide. With analysis, perhaps a global campaign does make sense for Twix. But look at the companies that are going in the other direction. Levi’s jeans have faded globally in recent years. Ford has chosen to keep acquired nameplates such as Mazda, and Volvo. And perhaps the most global company of all, Coca-Cola, is peddling two brands in India—Coke and Thums Up. Coke’s CEO explained at the time, “Coke has had to come to terms with a conflicting reality. In many parts of the world, consumers have become pickier, more penny-wise, or a little more nationalistic, and they are spending more of their money on local drinks whose flavors are not part of the Coca-Cola lineup.”

Part of this trend back toward localization is caused by the new efficiencies of customization made possible by the Internet and increasingly flexible manufacturing processes. Indeed, a good example of the new “mass customization” is Dell Computer Corporation, which maintains no inventory and builds each computer to order. Also crucial has been the apparent rejection of the logic of globalism by trade unionists, environmentalists, and consumers so well demonstrated in Seattle during the World Trade Organization meetings in 2000. Although there is a growing body of empirical research illustrating the risks and difficulties of global standardization, contrary results also appear in the literature. Finally, prominent among firms’ standardization strategies is Mattel’s recently unsuccessful globalization of blonde Barbie. We correctly predicted in a previous edition of this book that a better approach was that of Disney, with its more culturally diverse line of “Disney Princesses” including Mulan (Chinese) and Jasmine (Arabic). Even though Bratz and Disney Princesses won this battle of the new “toy soldiers,” the question is still not completely settled.

The competition among soft drink bottlers in India is fierce. Here Coke and Pepsi combine to ruin the view of the Taj Mahal. Notice how the red of Coke stands out among its competitors in the picture. Of course, now Coca-Cola has purchased Thums Up, a prominent local brand—this is a strategy the company is applying around the world. But the red is a substantial competitive advantage both on store shelves and in outdoor advertising of the sort common in India and other developing countries. We’re not sure who borrowed the “monsoon/thunder” slogans from whom.

Indeed, the debate about standardization versus adaptation is itself a wonderful example of the ethnocentrism of American managers and academics alike. That is, from the European or even the Japanese perspective, markets are by definition international, and the special requirements of the huge American market must be considered from the beginning. Only in America can international market requirements be an afterthought.

Items in the Disney Princess collection are on display at the Licensing International show at New York’s Javits Convention Center. It will be interesting to see Barbie’s (Mattel’s) competitive response to the ethnic breadth of the Disney line. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

Moreover, as the information explosion allows marketers to segment markets ever more finely, it is only the manufacturing and/or finance managers in companies who argue for standardization for the sake of economies of scale. From the marketing perspective, customization is always best. The ideal market segment size, if customer satisfaction is the goal, is one. According to one expert, “Forward-looking, proactive firms have the ability and willingness . . . to accomplish both tasks [standardization and localization] simultaneously.”

We believe things are actually simpler than that. As global markets continue to homogenize and diversify simultaneously, the best companies will avoid the trap of focusing on country as the primary segmentation variable. Other segmentation variables are often more important—for example, climate, language group, media habits, age, or income. The makers of Twix apparently think that media habits (that is, MTV viewer-ship) supersede country, according to their latest segmentation scheme. At least one industry CEO concurred regarding media-based segmentation: “With media splintering into smaller and smaller communities of interest, it will become more and more important to reach those audiences wherever [whichever country] they may be. Today, media companies are increasingly delivering their content over a variety of platforms: broadcast—both TV and radio—and cable, online and print, big screen video, and the newest portable digital media. And advertisers are using the same variety of platforms to reach their desired audience.” Finally, perhaps a few famous Italian brands are the best examples: Salvatore Ferragamo shoes, Gucci leather goods, and Ferrari cars sell to the highest-income segments globally. Indeed, for all three companies, their U.S. sales are greater than their Italian sales.

In the 21st century, standardization versus adaptation is simply not the right question to ask. Rather, the crucial question facing international marketers is what are the most efficient ways to segment markets. Country has been the most obvious segmentation variable, particularly for Americans. But as better communication systems continue to dissolve national borders, other dimensions of global markets are growing in salience.

The Nestlé Way: Evolution Not Revolution

Nestlé certainly hasn’t been bothered by the debate on standardization versus adaptation. Nestlé has been international almost from its start in 1866 as a maker of infant formula. By 1920, the company was producing in Brazil, Australia, and the United States and exporting to Hong Kong. Today, it sells more than 8,500 products produced in 489 factories in 193 countries. Nestlé is the world’s biggest marketer of infant formula, powdered milk, instant coffee, chocolate, soups, and mineral water. It ranks second in ice cream, and in cereals, it ties Ralston Purina and trails only Kellogg Company. Its products are sold in the most upscale supermarkets in Beverly Hills, California, and in huts in Nigeria, where women sell Nestlé bouillon cubes alongside homegrown tomatoes and onions. Although the company has no sales agents in North Korea, its products somehow find their way into stores there, too.

The “Nestlé way” is to dominate its markets. Its overall strategy can be summarized in four points: (1) Think and plan long term, (2) decentralize, (3) stick to what you know, and (4) adapt to local tastes. To see how Nestlé operates, take a look at its approach to Poland, one of the largest markets of the former Soviet bloc. Company executives decided at the outset that it would take too long to build plants and create brand awareness. Instead, the company pursued acquisitions and followed a strategy of “evolution not revolution.” It purchased Goplana, Poland’s second-best-selling chocolate maker (it bid for the No. 1 company but lost out) and carefully adjusted the end product via small changes every two months over a two-year period until it measured up to Nestlé’s standards and was a recognizable Nestlé brand. These efforts, along with all-out marketing, put the company within striking distance of the market leader, Wedel. Nestlé also purchased a milk operation and, as it did in Mexico, India, and elsewhere, sent technicians into the field to help Polish farmers improve the quality and quantity of the milk it buys through better feeds and improved sanitation.

Nestlé’s efforts in the Middle East are much longer term. The area currently represents only about 2 percent of the company’s worldwide sales, and the markets, individually, are relatively small. Furthermore, regional conflicts preclude most trade among the countries. Nevertheless, Nestlé anticipates that hostility will someday subside, and when that happens, the company will be ready to sell throughout the entire region. Nestlé has set up a network of factories in five countries that can someday supply the entire region with different products. The company makes ice cream in Dubai and soups and cereals in Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian factory makes yogurt and bouillon, while Turkey produces chocolate. And a factory in Syria makes ketchup, a malted-chocolate energy food, instant noodles, and other products. If the obstacles between the countries come down, Nestlé will have a network of plants ready to provide a complete line to market in all the countries. In the meantime, factories produce and sell mostly in the countries in which they are located.

For many companies, such a long-term strategy would not be profitable, but it works for Nestlé because the company relies on local ingredients and markets products that consumers can afford. The tomatoes and wheat used in the Syrian factory, for example, are major local agricultural products. Even if Syrian restrictions on trade remain, there are 14 million people to buy ketchup, noodles, and other products the company produces there. In all five countries, the Nestlé name and the bird-in-a-nest trademark appear on every product.

Nestlé bills itself as “the only company that is truly dedicated to providing a complete range of food products to meet the needs and tastes of people from around the world, each hour of their day, throughout their entire lives.”

Benefits of Global Marketing

Few firms have truly global operations balanced across major regional markets. However, when large market segments can be identified, economies of scale in production and marketing can be important competitive advantages for multinational companies. As a case in point, Black & Decker Manufacturing Company—makers of electrical hand tools, appliances, and other consumer products—realized significant production cost savings when it adopted a pan-European strategy. It was able to reduce not only the number of motor sizes for the European market from 260 to 8 but also 15 different models to 8. Similarly, Ford estimates that by unifying product development, purchasing, and supply activities across several countries, it saved up to $3 billion a year. Finally, while Japanese firms initially dominated the mobile phone business in their home market, international competitors now pose growing challenges via better technologies developed through greater global penetration.

Transfer of experience and know-how across countries through improved coordination and integration of marketing activities is also cited as a benefit of global operations. Global diversity in marketing talent leads to new approaches across markets. Unilever successfully introduced two global brands originally developed by two subsidiaries. Its South African subsidiary developed Impulse body spray, and a European branch developed a detergent that cleaned effectively in European hard water. Aluminum Company of America’s (Alcoa) joint-venture partner in Japan produced aluminum sheets so perfect that U.S. workers, when shown samples, accused the company of hand-selecting the samples. Line workers were sent to the Japanese plant to learn the techniques, which were then transferred to the U.S. operations. Because of the benefits of such transfers of knowledge, Alcoa has changed its practice of sending managers overseas to “keep an eye on things” to sending line workers and managers to foreign locations to seek out new techniques and processes.

Marketing globally also ensures that marketers have access to the toughest customers. For example, in many product and service categories, the Japanese consumer has been the hardest to please; the demanding customers are the reason that the highest-quality products and services often emanate from that country. Competing for Japanese customers provides firms with the best testing ground for high-quality products and services.

Diversity of markets served carries with it additional financial benefits. Spreading the portfolio of markets served brings an important stability of revenues and operations to many global companies. Companies with global marketing operations suffered less during the Asian market downturn of the late 1990s than did firms specializing in the area. Firms that market globally are able to take advantage of changing financial circumstances in other ways as well. For example, as tax and tariff rates ebb and flow around the world, the most global companies are able to leverage the associated complexity to their advantage.

CROSSING BORDERS 11.1: Swedish Takeout

Fifty years ago in the woods of southern Sweden, a minor revolution took place that has since changed the concept of retailing and created a mass market in a category where none previously existed. The catalyst of the change was and is IKEA, the Swedish furniture retailer and distributor that virtually invented the idea of self-service, takeout furniture. IKEA sells high-quality, reasonably priced, and innovatively designed furniture and home furnishings for a global marketplace.

The name was registered in Agunnaryd, Sweden, in 1943 by Ingvar Kamprad—the IK in the company’s name. He entered the furniture market in 1950, and the first catalog was published in 1951. The first store didn’t open until 1958 in Almhult. It became so incredibly popular that a year later the store had to add a restaurant for people who were traveling long distances to get there.

IKEA entered the United States in 1985. Although IKEA is global, most of the action takes place in Europe, with about 85 percent of the firm’s $7 billion in sales. Nearly one-fourth of that comes from stores in Germany. This compares to only about $1 billion in NAFTA countries.

One reason for the relatively slow growth in the United States is that its stores are franchised by Netherlands-based Inter IKEA Systems, which carefully scrutinizes potential franchisees—individuals or companies—for strong financial backing and a proven record in retailing. The IKEA Group, based in Denmark, is a group of private companies owned by a charitable foundation in the Netherlands; they operate more than 100 stores. The Group also develops, purchases, distributes, and sells IKEA products, which are available only in company stores. The items are purchased from more than 2,400 suppliers in 65 countries and shipped through 14 distribution centers.

Low price is built into the company’s lines. Even catalog prices are guaranteed not to increase for one year. The drive to produce affordable products inadvertently put IKEA at the forefront of the environmental movement several decades ago. In addition to lowering costs, minimization of materials and packing addressed natural resource issues. Environmentalism remains an integral operational issue at IKEA. Even the company’s catalog is completely recyclable and produced digitally rather than on film.

On the day that Russia’s first IKEA store opened in 2000, the wait to get in was an hour. Highway traffic backed up for miles. More than 40,000 people crammed into the place, picking clean sections of the warehouse. The store still pulls in more than 100,000 customers per week. IKEA has big plans for Russia. Company officials dream of placing IKEA’s simple shelves, kitchens, bathrooms, and bedrooms in millions of Russian apartments that haven’t been remodeled since the Soviet days. And now IKEA has opened five new stores in China’s biggest cities.

Sources: Colin McMahon, “Russians Flock to IKEA as Store Battles Moscow,” Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2000; Katarina Kling and Ingela Goteman, “IKEA CEO Anders Dahlvig on International Growth and IKEA’s Unique Corporate Culture and Brand Identity,” Academy of Management Executive, February 2003, pp. 31–37; “IKEA to March into China’s Second-tier Cities [Next],” SinoCast China Business Daily News, August 6, 2007, p. 1.

Planning for Global Markets

Planning is a systematized way of relating to the future. It is an attempt to manage the effects of external, uncontrollable factors on the firm’s strengths, weaknesses, objectives, and goals to attain a desired end. Furthermore, it is a commitment of resources to a country market to achieve specific goals. In other words, planning is the job of making things happen that might not otherwise occur.

Planning allows for rapid growth of the international function, changing markets, increasing competition, and the turbulent challenges of different national markets. The plan must blend the changing parameters of external country environments with corporate objectives and capabilities to develop a sound, workable marketing program. A strategic plan commits corporate resources to products and markets to increase competitiveness and profits.

CROSSING BORDERS 11.2: Apple Shops for Partners around the World

Apple has moved fast since its introduction of the iPhone, making distribution deals with U.S. and European operators. Now Steve Jobs is turning east, making plans to enter Japan, one of the biggest and most sophisticated mobile phone markets in the world.

People familiar with the situation say Jobs recently met with NTT DoCoMo Inc.’s president, Masao Nakamura, to discuss a deal to offer the iPhone in Japan through the nation’s dominant mobile operator. These informants said Apple also has been talking to the No. 3 operator, Softbank Corp., and that executives from both companies have made multiple trips to Apple’s Cupertino, California, headquarters. For Apple, finding a wireless partner soon in Japan is an important step in the company’s oft-stated goal of gaining a 1 percent share of the global cell phone business by shipping about 10 million iPhones between the product’s launch in late June 2007 and the end of 2008.

The world’s second-largest economy, after the United States, is an attractive market because it not only has a strong base of iPod fans, but its nearly 100 million mobile phone users buy new phones every two years on average. Japanese consumers also are accustomed to shelling out hundreds of dollars for expensive phones with advanced capabilities, such as digital television, cameras, and music.

Yet Japan could be a difficult market to crack for Apple. More than 10 domestic mobile phone makers work closely with the three major operators to develop phones tailored to Japanese consumers’ tastes. In the past, foreign mobile phone makers have not been willing to go to such lengths and generally have met with little success in selling their phones, especially when those phones do not contain essential Japanese features, such as the operators’ proprietary mobile Internet technology or e-mail software that Japanese consumers are used to having.

The iPhone has been successful thus far in countries where it has been launched. Apple sold a total of 1.4 million iPhones by late September 2007. And though sales of the product did not quite meet some of the most bullish Wall Street forecasts, the iPhone has been one of the top-selling smart phones in the United States, where it is sold only through AT&T Inc., the nation’s largest carrier by subscribers.

In Japan, Softbank has been widely believed to be interested in a partnership with Apple, but people familiar with the matter say DoCoMo is likely to be Apple’s first choice because of the strong preference it has shown so far for signing agreements with top mobile operators.

Sources: John Markoff, “A Personal Computer to Carry in a Pocket,” The New York Times, January 8, 2007, pp. C1, C3; Yukari Iwatani and Nick Wingfield, “Apple Meets with DoCoMo, Softbank on Launching iPhone in Japan,” The Wall Street Journal (online), December 18, 2007.

Planning relates to the formulation of goals and methods of accomplishing them, so it is both a process and a philosophy. Structurally, planning may be viewed as corporate, strategic, or tactical. International is essentially long term, incorporating generalized goals for the enterprise as a whole. is conducted at the highest levels of management and deals with products, capital, research, and the long- and short-term goals of the company. , or market planning, pertains to specific actions and to the allocation of resources used to implement strategic planning goals in specific markets. Tactical plans are made at the local level and address marketing and advertising questions.

A major advantage to a multinational corporation (MNC) involved in planning is the discipline imposed by the process. An international marketer who has gone through the planning process has a framework for analyzing marketing problems and opportunities and a basis for coordinating information from different country markets. The process of planning may be as important as the plan itself because it forces decision makers to examine all factors that affect the success of a marketing program and involves those who will be responsible for its implementation. Another key to successful planning is evaluating company objectives, including management’s commitment and philosophical orientation to international business. Finally, the planning process is a primary medium of organizational learning.

Company Objectives and Resources

Defining objectives clarifies the orientation of the domestic and international divisions, permitting consistent policies. The lack of well-defined objectives has found companies rushing into promising foreign markets only to find activities that conflict with or detract from the companies’ primary objectives.

Foreign market opportunities do not always parallel corporate objectives; it may be necessary to change the objectives, alter the scale of international plans, or abandon them. One market may offer immediate profit but have a poor long-run outlook, while another may offer the reverse. Only when corporate objectives are clear can such differences be reconciled effectively.

International Commitment

The planning approach taken by an international firm affects the degree of internationalization to which management is philosophically committed. Such commitment affects the specific international strategies and decisions of the firm. After company objectives have been identified, management needs to determine whether it is prepared to make the level of commitment required for successful international operations—commitment in terms of dollars to be invested, personnel for managing the international organization, and determination to stay in the market long enough to realize a return on these investments.

The degree of commitment to an international marketing cause reflects the extent of a company’s involvement. A company uncertain of its prospects is likely to enter a market timidly, using inefficient marketing methods, channels, or organizational forms, thus setting the stage for the failure of a venture that might have succeeded with full commitment and support by the parent company. Any long-term marketing plan should be fully supported by senior management and have realistic time goals set for sales growth. Occasionally, casual market entry is successful, but more often than not, market success requires long-term commitment.

Finally, a new series of studies is demonstrating a strong regional preference for multinational companies as they expand their operations. Part of this preference is due to the challenges associated with cultural distance and part with physical distance, particularly that related to the difficulties of doing business across time zones. As we mentioned previously, most countries and companies trade most with their neighbors. Others report that firms also gain competitive advantages from clustering operations in specific regions. Although some disagree, researchers question the existence of global strategies, maintaining that only nine American Fortune 500 companies deserve the term “global” with respect to their operational coverage of the planet. We can agree that strategic choices currently favor regional foci, but the trend is toward steadily increasing globalization of trade agreements, trade, and company strategies, as we mentioned in the previous chapter. Competition and the new ease of global communications is forcing managers around the world to make greater commitments to global marketing.