Brand Building in Emerging Markets

by: Gilberto Duarte de Abreu Filho, Nicola Calicchio, and Fernando Lunardini
source: The McKinsey Quarterly
published : February 01, 2003

European and US consumer goods makers, confronted by slowing growth at home, are turning to the
fast-growing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In 2002 the top 20 consumer goods companies
spent more than $10 billion to expand their share of these markets, which now account for nearly 40
percent of all worldwide sales of clothing and grocery products (Exhibit 1). However, many such
companies find that their expensive brands and management processes are more a hindrance than a
help in reaching the lower-income segments.

Our study of global consumer goods makers1 operating in emerging markets revealed a consistent
pattern: companies perform best in the vast low-income segment by adopting local branding and
organizational strategies, which often run counter to established practice in more advanced regions.2
Most of the companies we studied entered an emerging market by acquiring a local competitor; they were
essentially buying access to local distribution networks and facilities. Next they brought in brand
managers from more developed markets, who typically overhauled manufacturing processes and
launched expensive marketing campaigns. In addition, most multinationals sought to integrate their
acquisitions into the parent organization by extending their corporate functions to the local companies and
allocating a share of those costs. In almost every case, the companies then had to raise prices.
That approach can work for products aimed at affluent consumers, who in emerging as in developed

Related Thinking from The McKinsey

Quarterly ...

markets will pay a premium for brand names. But it

usually prices products out of the mass market: local
competitors have such an enormous cost advantage that
Do Retail Brands Travel? - Peter N. Child, Suzanne it isnt unusual for multinational companies to lose half of
Heywood, and Michael Kliger
the market share of the brands they acquire. In one
What's Wrong with the Consumer Goods
emerging market we studied, for instance, the product of
Organization? - Arthur G. Armstrong, Helene Enright,
the lowest-priced local competitor sold for about 40
Elizabeth C. Lempres, and Stacey Rauch
percent less than a global companys brand-name soap
powder. The local company merely manufactures and
distributes its soap; it has no marketing or brand-management expenses and enjoys far lower costs for
materials, packaging, and production. The local product thus gives its manufacturer margins quite
comparable to those of the global company and provides higher margins for retailers (Exhibit 2), thus
increasing their loyalty. Local manufacturers can maintain their profitability even without tax evasiona
common charge against them.

To compete, the global manufacturers should develop two distinct approaches to emerging markets. For
the high-income segment, such companies can build profitable positions by continuing to pursue
sophisticated brand-building strategies. But to capture the low-price market, they would do better to
emulate their local competitors. First, global companies should retain the best local managers, who, we
found, are less likely to change products (or their packaging and promotion) extensively. The
manufacturers that didnt make such changes achieved profitable growth two-thirds of the time, while
those that did usually failed to do so. The key is to focus on cost reduction, operational efficiency, and

simplicity rather than product reformulations or marketing efforts. Companies relying on managers imbued
with the branding mind-set of advanced markets tended to focus on the wrong things.
Second, successful global entrants in emerging markets further minimized the risks by adhering to local
standards of quality and technology; these companies let the consumers define quality and refrained from
uprooting local design and production systems. In response to a low-cost competitor in India, Unilever, for
example, introduced an inexpensive powder detergent called Wheel and outsourced its production to a
local manufacturer. The product was less refined than Unilevers premium Indian brand and sold for about
one-third as much, allowing the company to serve a previously neglected low-price market. With only one
strong competitor in it, Wheel quickly won 38 percent of the powder-detergent market in India, thereby
matching the competitors market share.
Finally, companies that acquired local manufacturers but kept their operations separatesharing only a
few functions, such as purchasing or logisticsoutperformed those that fully integrated local acquisitions.
The parent should act much as a venture capital firm does, by investing in companies that are growing,
preserving their autonomy and lower cost structures, and transferring product ideas from one country to
another. (After achieving success with Wheel, for instance, Unilever introduced a similar product in South
America.) But such successes will remain elusive unless companies accept a hard lesson: in the low-end
segment of emerging markets, homegrown management methods and an awareness of local tastes and
incomes will usually work best.