You are on page 1of 11

International Business

Prof Bharat Nadkarni

Indianising the western brand The story so far: Multinational companies came to India armed with their smug selfbelief of many market conquests under their belt. Ran their Made-in-New ork strategies! only to run into serious consumer indifference! are today suitably chastened and are looking to Indianise their brands. "ellogg#s! MT$! Mc%onald#s& the list is impressi'e. Instead of running o'er the same ground! let us focus on the underlying conceptual issues that emerge from what we ha'e seen in the last few years. The most fundamental question that arises from this is the 'alidity of the 'ery idea of global brands. In becoming Indian! are these brands becoming less global( If Reebok is a'ailable at a 'ery low price point in India! will it compromise

the brand in the long run( Is MT$ in India a different brand from MT$ worldwide( The )illsbury %oughboy! for instance cannot possibly e'oke the same set of associations in India as it does in *ngland! +ust as ,sian )aints# -.attu# would lea'e a lot of /esterners cold. 0o! what are the principles that go'ern successful localisation( /hat would make a brand global and local at the same time( The first principle of successful localisation would be to understand the core essence of the global brand. The more upstream the definition of what is it that makes Nike the brand it is 1answering the human desire for limitlessness2! the greater its ability to na'igate cultures. The more specific and downstream the definition 1worn by the world#s best athletes2! the less its ability to tra'el across cultures. This is because the

rele'ance of the specific benefit offered may be highly conte3tual. , brand of cereal aimed at children rooted in a sports setting may be rele'ant in some markets but in a culture like India! where sports are still seen as eating into studying time! that definition will be a burden. It would be much better to define the brand in terms of the underlying idea that led it to associate with sports 1stri'ing for perfection2 than try and take on the mantle of promoting sports in order to promote the brand. The problem becomes much more tangible when the brand#s meaning is e3pressed in terms of a brand icon 1)illsbury %oughboy! The 4heetos 4heetah2. 0ymbols are powerful because they communicate at many subterranean le'els effortlessly. 5owe'er! when culturally adrift symbols like these are used! brands spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to breathe some meaning into these lifeless

creatures! di'erting their energies from their main task of communicating the underlying intent behind the symbols. The symbols become ends by themsel'es! in the mistaken belief that marketing these symbols is part of ensuring that the brand presents a consistent face across markets. The )illsbury %oughboy! for instance cannot possibly e'oke the same set of associations in India as it does in *ngland! +ust as a .attu would lea'e a lot of /esterners cold. ,t a conceptual le'el! for a brand to tra'el across cultures! it must e3press what it stands for in human terms. /hat makes brands global is that they manage to reach beyond indi'idual personalities! beyond filters imposed by cultures into that stratum of human beings that is uni'ersal. If a brand desires uni'ersal acceptance! then it must define itself in human terms rather than in terms of what the product deli'ers or e'en in terms of how the brand is different from competition. )roduct benefits and

competiti'e ad'antages can be conte3tual6 primary human moti'ations are likelier to be uni'ersal. If brands do appeal to uni'ersal human emotions! why then localise( /hy not try really hard to arri'e at that uni'ersal brand core and communicate that e'erywhere in the same way( 7ecause that uni'ersal core is mediated by an intermediate lens: that of culture. 4ulture! in the sense of what anthropologist 4lifford .eert8 called 9a set of control mechanisms : plans! recipes! rules! instructions 1what computer engineers call -programs#2 for the go'erning of beha'iour.; This is the lens of our mind! through which we comprehend reality. ,t a collecti'e le'el! bound by a common past and a shared 'alue system! people belonging to a culture share a similarity of perspecti'e. *'ery culture particularises a uni'ersal emotion! con'erting it from an abstract 'alue into real life actions in the form of

rituals! beliefs! etiquette! language etc.! thereby making it its own. Take the uni'ersal need for families. *'ery culture 'alues families! but the e3pression of that 'aries 'astly. To illustrate! the word -nephew# is borrowed from <rench! since the *nglish had no need to gi'e that relationship a specific name. In India! we ha'e a specific word describing all relationships! whereas the *nglish language bands all of these together under -=ncle# or -,unt#. >ike wise the ritual of Raksha 7andhan! for instance magnifies the brothersister relation in a distincti'ely Indian way. ?'erall! the meaning of a family! the priority accorded to it o'er the considerations of any one indi'idual and the way it is represented is 'ery different from the /est. <or a global brand to communicate what it stands for in human terms! therefore! it must

translate that uni'ersal human emotion into its specific cultural counterpart. It is only then that it can truly resonate with the local ethos. <or this to happen! brands must understand how the local cultural filter works. >ocalisation is not about -ethnic# representations. 7eing -Indian# in a selfconscious coffee-table way is nothing but an ad'ertisement of one#s foreignness. Nor is it about using local celebrities and associating with cricket. These might help! but these are first le'el connections. The more critical questions e3ist at the 'alue le'el. The meaning of MT$ is the same the world o'er 1hip! irre'erent e3uberance2! but the role it plays in India is more specific 1helped make what is -local# cool2 Take the e3ample of health and hygiene. The desire to protect oneself from the hostile e3ternal en'ironment is perhaps a uni'ersal one. 5owe'er! the /estern concern with germs is not shared in precisely the same way by the Indian consumer. The Indian

notion of hygiene is closer to that of symbolic purification. The Indian need for cleanliness! and the insistence on taking a bath e'eryday! comes not so much from a desire for hygiene defined in a clinical way! but by way of feeling cleansed and purified. /hich is why we ha'e the parado3 of e3cellent personal hygiene co-e3isting with terrible ci'ic sanitation. /hich is why we clean the house twice a day but dump the garbage right outside our doors: the cleaning was symbolic! and outside the door! symbolically lies the outside world. <or a brand that is rooted in the idea of hygiene! an understanding of this cultural interpretation is critical. In the absence of this understanding! the brand is in serious danger of talking at cross-purposes with the consumer. If a brand does take note of this difference! will the meaning of the brand not get

altered( /ill the understanding of what the brand stands for not be different than in other parts of the world( If a brand stands for hygiene in the west and for symbolic purification in India! is it really the same brand( It is perhaps unrealistic to e3pect that the brand is decoded in an e3actly similar way the world o'er. /e can control what we emit! but in any case! ha'e little control o'er what is recei'ed. /hat is recei'ed is determined by the specific characteristics of the recei'er as well as the larger culture she belongs to. It is perhaps useful to instead allow for this difference in the framework itself. 7rands stand for the same thing the world o'er! but the role they play in the consumer#s life 'aries by time and place. The meaning of MT$ is the same the world o'er 1hip! irre'erent e3uberance2! but the role it plays

in India is more specific 1helped make what is -local# cool2. This role is unique to India and comes as a result of the interaction of the global brand meaning with the local conte3t. /hat this splitting of the brand meaning and the brand role allows us to do is to reconcile the seeming contradiction of a uni'ersal meaning and a local e3pression. It allows us to factor in local imperati'es while keeping the -globalness# of the brand idea intact. The implicit model of a global brand then becomes one with a uni'ersal core! but that plays different roles in different cultures as the core meaning gets filtered through the refractory lens of local conte3t. This is pretty much what we ha'e seen in India6 the global brands that ha'e successfully Indianised ha'e managed to hold on to their global character at the core essence le'el! but ha'e not been shy of playing a typically

9Indian; role in the li'es of the consumer here. Michael )erry! e3-head of =nile'er once said! 9The only way to build a global brand is to build a local brand many times o'er;. Multinationals in India would certainly nod in agreement.

You might also like