1. IMPERIAL COLLEGE BUSINESS SCHOOL
INNOVATION, ENTREPRENEURSHIP &
MANAGEMENT REPORT
Submitted by: Wichares Bunjitpimol
Official Submission Date: August 21, 2015
CID Number: 00994122
Word Count: 4,997
"Think global but act local" - does it always work? A discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages for consumers when organizations
adopt a "glocalization" approach towards them, including relevant
case study examples from markets, products and services.

2. Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………. I
1.
Introduction
.............................................................................................................................
1
1.1
Background of the Research
...................................................................................................
1
1.2
Overview of the Topic
.................................................................................................................
2
1.3
Aims and Objectives
...................................................................................................................
2
2.
Analysis
....................................................................................................................................
3
2.1
Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Consumers
.........................................................................
3
2.2
Culture and Consumption
.........................................................................................................
4
2.3
Starbucks
.........................................................................................................................................
5
2.4
McDonalds
......................................................................................................................................
7
2.5
Coca-Cola
........................................................................................................................................
8
2.6
Nike
....................................................................................................................................................
9
3.
Conclusion and Recommendations
............................................................................
11
3.1
Conclusion
....................................................................................................................................
11
3.2
Recommendations
.....................................................................................................................
12
References
.....................................................................................................................................
13

3. I
Abstract
This essay examines the concept of glocalization and its advantages and disadvantages for
consumers in a market when a business adopts a glocalization strategy. The essay uses
several case studies, including consumer groups (national cultures) and companies
(Starbucks, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Nike) in order to demonstrate different aspects of
glocalization strategies and their advantages and disadvantages for customers.
Glocalization strategies offer consumers a number of advantages, including access to
appropriate and affordable consumer goods, opportunities to experience and remix cultures,
and bridges to global cultures and identities. However, there are also a number of
disadvantages, including potentially inappropriate product offerings, loss of local cultures,
and failure to appeal to local tastes and preferences. The recommendation of this essay is
that companies consider how their brands will interact with the local market.

4. 1
1. Introduction
“Think global, act local.” This slogan is the foundation of a business strategy termed
glocalization, in which businesses adapt standard product lines and marketing strategies for
local techniques and practices. The question this essay addresses is: what advantages and
disadvantages for consumers occur when a business adapts a glocalization strategy
towards them?
1.1 Background of the Research
Although today international marketing is taken for granted, it is a relatively new
phenomenon. Although there were a small number of international marketing campaigns
conducted from the 1900s to the 1950s, the use of standardized international or
transnational marketing only became commonplace in the 1960s, with the
internationalization of American consumer products like Coca-Cola (Miracle, 2008). These
campaigns used the same marketing strategies in each new market entered, with minimal
adaptations for language or other requirements and without consideration of local contexts
or cultures (Miracle, 2008). Early campaigns were not universally successful. One example
of this is Coca-Cola’s significant market share to rival American soft drink manufacturer
Pepsi in the 1970s and 1980s (Prahalad & Lieberthal, 1998). The main difference between
these companies was that while Pepsi adapted its campaign for the local market, Coca-Cola
used its standardized global campaign, which did not resonate with local buyers. This case,
and others like it, provoked a debate about standardization (i.e. the use of standard
advertising campaigns) versus localization (i.e. production of an appropriate campaign for
each market) (Sinclair & Wilken, 2009). To some extent, companies are moving past the
debate between globalization and localization as markets and marketing practice changes.
For example, regionalization, or the use of a shared strategy across culturally similar regions
that are not bound by national borders, is increasingly common (Sinclair & Wilken, 2009).
Companies have also begun to take notice of consumers at the bottom of the pyramid, or
BOP (Guesalaga & Marshall, 2008). A growing awareness of cultural differences in attitudes,
preferences, and norms, which lead to different preferences and behaviours in different
countries, also influences marketing strategies (Hofstede et al., 2010). These changes in the
market call for a significant rethinking of marketing strategies and the use of standardized
approaches.

5. 2
1.2 Overview of the Topic
One of the ways that marketing strategy is being rethought is through the concept of
glocalization. Glocalization is a concept that has emerged from sociological work on
globalization and its interpretations (Ritzer, 2003). Ritzer (2003, p. 193) defines glocalization
as “the interpenetration of the global and the local, resulting in unique outcomes in different
geographic areas.” The concept of glocalization refutes earlier concepts of globalization,
which assumed that the interaction and blending of cultures would lead to a homogeneous
outcome. It also refutes the dominance of the West in earlier concepts of globalization,
which assumed that globalization would lead to Westernization. Instead, glocalization
suggests that the intermingling of local cultures and multiple global cultures will result in
distinct blends of cultural norms, practices and traditions as well as differing tastes and
preferences (Ritzer, 2003). In short, glocalization is a rejection of Western-centric
modernization theories, along with a rejection of standardization models of global expansion
and profit generation.
As a marketing approach, glocalization emerged from the increasingly common failure of
centrally controlled standardized global marketing campaigns (Dumitrescu & Vinerean,
2010). According to these authors, “’Glocal strategy’ refers to the idea of ‘think global, act
local’ (Dumitrescu & Vinerean, 2010, p.149).” In other words, it is the use of a localized
product, along with an overarching, uniform marketing message. This approach is designed
to maintain stability in terms of brand identity and marketing practices, while allowing for
local tastes and consumer requirements. While glocalization as a marketing strategy uses a
standard brand name, and may draw on characteristics such as country of origin (COO)
perceptions, the product and marketing mix are adapted to account for local preferences,
local markets and local competition (Dumitrescu & Vinerean, 2010). An example of
glocalization is the global brands McDonalds and Starbucks, both of which combine a
standard global menu with special menu items adapted for local preferences and trends
(Dumitrescu & Vinerean, 2010; Thompson & Arsel, 2004).
1.3 Aims and Objectives
The aim of this research is to examine the advantages and disadvantages of glocalization as
a marketing strategy for consumers. The objectives include:
1. Using case studies to demonstrate the use of glocalization as a marketing approach;
2. Identifying the benefits for consumers from these strategies; and
3. Identifying the disadvantages for consumers from these strategies.

6. 3
The approach used for this research is a qualitative critical review of the literature,
emphasizing academic case studies and models of localization. Cases have been selected
from high profile global companies as well as start-up firms, to showcase the breadth of
glocalization strategies and approaches.
2. Analysis
Glocalization as a business strategy could have different advantages and disadvantages for
different consumer groups. In this section, a series of case studies is used to demonstrate
how consumers benefit, and how they may be disadvantaged, from glocalization strategies.
Each of the case studies was selected to demonstrate a different aspect of glocalization and
consumer response. These case studies show that glocalization does not have the same
benefits for all consumers, and it is not received in the same way by all consumer groups. In
some cases, strategies that may work in one market may fail completely in another market.
In keeping with the heterogeneous nature of glocalization, responses to glocalization and its
benefits and disadvantages vary widely between consumer groups.
2.1 Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Consumers
BOP consumers are consumers that live on $2/day or less (the global poverty line)
(Pralahad, 2006). It is estimated that four to five billion of the world’s people fall below this
line (Wood et al., 2008). BOP BOP consumers are under-served by global brands, whose
product and marketing mixes are targeted to higher income consumers (Pralahad, 2006).
However, packages and less expensive materials can be used for product redesign for BOP
consumers. Pralahad (2006) points out marketing to BOP consumers benefits both the firm
and the consumer. By providing necessary products, companies can help raise both living
standards and their own profits (Pralahad, 2006). Companies can also manufacture or
package goods in developing countries, generating increased productive capacity as well as
consumer goods (Pralahad, 2006).
Marketing to BOP consumers often involves the use of a so-called umbrella brand, under
which different products are customized for the individual market (Wood et al., 2008). The
use of an umbrella brand ties consumers in higher-income and lower-income markets
together. Localization of BOP marketing requires adaptation of packaging and products in
order to meet local needs and incomes (Pralahad, 2006). For example, this could include
adapting the formulation of a laundry product (for example, for use in cold or hard water) and
its packaging (reducing the size or even offering single-use packages), to make the product

7. 4
usable and affordable for consumers in the market. Differences in purchasing power and
consumer preferences across markets do mean that localization is required to some extent
(Guesalaga & Marshall, 2008). Thus, glocalization as used by mass consumer product
manufacturers has a clear benefit for BOP consumers: these consumers gain access to
products that improve their standard of living, and which are packaged and priced in a way
that is useful and affordable.
One disadvantage of glocalization is that firms may choose to offer unethical or
inappropriate products or use exploitive pricing (Davidson, 2009). For example, Unilever’s
Fair and Lovely lightening cosmetic was marketed in India using a campaign perceived as
racist and offensive. There are also ethical problems with pricing, advertising and marketing
strategies. For example, BOP products may be priced at an extractive rate, use misleading
advertising, or create demand for unnecessary products (Davidson, 2009).
2.2 Culture and Consumption
It is not just consumer incomes that make a difference in purchasing practices. Culture also
makes a difference. Hofstede, et al.’s (2010) dimensions of culture model identifies five
characteristics of culture that influence norms, practices and preferences of individuals
within that culture. These include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs.
femininity, individualism vs. collectivism, and long-term orientation (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Each of these dimensions could make a difference in how products are perceived or how
their advertising is accepted. For example, in a highly individualist culture, individual benefits
and preferences would be the focus of successful marketing, while in a highly collectivist
culture, group benefits, such as benefits to the family, would be a more successful focus
(Hofstede et al., 2010). Other models of cultural dimensions also identify different
preferences and norms that could influence advertising practices (Terlutter et al., 2006). For
example, the GLOBE study identified nine different dimensions of culture, all of which have
different applications to cultural preferences. Glocalization strategies, which emphasize
different elements of the product and marketing strategy for different regions (Dumitrescu &
Vinerean, 2010), can be modified in order to account for these preferences. However,
cultural dimensions cannot be relied on alone to determine glocalization needs. The first
reason for this is because individuals show a lot of variation within national groups for their
own preferences and norms (Hofstede et al., 2010). There is also the serious question of the
national boundary as a delineation of the cultural boundary (Tung, 2008). Several cultural
groups may exist within a single state boundary, while cultural similarities may extend across

8. 5
a given region. Thus, there is a need to consider the actual cultures, not just the international
boundaries, which can lead to a regionalization approach.
2.3 Starbucks
One of the best-known brands that uses glocalization as a marketing strategy is the
American coffee shop chain Starbucks (Thompson & Arsel, 2004). Starbucks is notable
because, unlike companies like McDonalds or Coca-Cola, it has used a glocalization
strategy since its inception, rather than moving away from a standardized international
marketing strategy (Wong, 2015). Thus, it can be considered as a key adopter of glocalized
marketing strategies among major firms.
One author has termed the effect of Starbucks entering a new market Starbuckization
(Wong, 2015). This concept relates to the impact that Starbucks has on the local market,
which are generated from competitive pressure as well as the business practices of
Starbucks itself. Starbucks operations are characterized by their efficient and predictable
nature, with consistent outcomes for consumers ensured by the use of standard procedures,
training, and technology (Wong, 2015). These procedures underlie the brand’s
differentiation, which relies on a positive ethical position, personal relationships with
customers, and premium brand image. Additionally, Starbucks draws on a specific coffee
culture originating from Seattle as a way to emphasize its legitimacy and quality (Wong,
2015). This approach has been highly successful for Starbucks in most markets, as it has
resulted in a change in coffee culture in many of the markets it has entered (Thompson &
Arsel, 2004). Among the other changes it has created, Starbucks has succeeded in
constructing the coffee shop in general as a third place, or in other words a place outside the
home for relaxation, comfort and socialization. This is not effective for all market sectors. For
example, Thompson and Arsel (2004) reported on a market segment they termed café
flâneurs, who prefer local coffee shops because they view Starbucks as inauthentic or mass-
market. Others avoid Starbucks as a statement of support for localism and local markets and
entrepreneurs, or out of preference for local coffee cultures (Thompson & Arsel, 2004).
However, Starbucks can also offer an entry point to exploration of other cultures (McGuire &
Hu, 2013). These authors report that in China, Starbucks is viewed resolutely as a foreign
brand, and consumption of Starbucks products is viewed as a status activity, indicating high
income and a global outlook. Furthermore, Starbucks is one of the ways in which Chinese
consumers begin to engage with Western cultures through food and the use of the third
place. McGuire and Hu (2013) propose that consumption of Starbucks is a way for Chinese
consumers to construct an identity that includes international and global dimensions.

9. 6
Starbucks’ attempt to enter the Australian market shows that glocalization strategies cannot
always provide consumers with new or differentiated products, and which can sometimes
result in total rejection. Starbucks’ market entry included the introduction of local products
(such as scones and drink flavours), as well as the development of services that were
intended to fill in gaps in the competitor market (Patterson et al., 2010). However, the
Starbucks brand and global menu was fundamentally inconsistent with the coffee habits and
preferences of Australian consumers. Australia already had an extensive coffee culture, with
strong preferences for traditional Italian style drinks. Additionally, there were a number of
strong competitors already in the market. Starbucks also did not pay attention to some
important issues; for example, rather than introducing the brand slowly, they planned an
extensive and immediate market entry. Patterson, et al. (2010) pointed out that with no time
to integrate Starbucks into Australian culture, consumers rejected the brand. Starbucks was
forced to withdraw from the Australian market, leaving only a small number of shops
(Patterson et al., 2010). Starbucks is not alone in such a failure. Walt Disney’s development
o Disneyland Paris, which was already plagued by financial problems at its opening, faced a
similar consumer rejection (Matusitz, 2010). In the Disneyland Paris case, there was no
attempt to localize the product, and instead a copy of the firm’s American theme parks was
constructed, including culturally particular aspects such as food and pricing. As a result, the
company was nearly forced to withdraw from the market until it adapted its practices
(Matusitz, 2010). These examples show that even in cases where companies have existing
policies of glocalization, these can fail if the company’s standardized brand or product
offerings do not meet consumer needs. However, these failures are not unique to firms using
glocalization strategies.
The case of Starbucks shows that the glocalization associated with marketing campaigns
can have a complex relationship with consumer identities. Starbucks often introduces coffee
culture or changes the existing coffee culture when it enters a market, resulting in a
heterogeneous coffee market. Not all consumers are won over by this approach, with some
consumers rejecting Starbucks as inauthentic or preferring local chains. The case of
Australia shows that in the case of a strong existing coffee culture, Starbucks may be
entirely unsuccessful. However, other consumers may use Starbucks as a stepping stone to
globalized culture, or as a first experience of Western cultural aspects of food and food ritual
as well as the experience of the third place.

10. 7
2.4 McDonalds
Another classical example of a company that uses glocalization is McDonalds (Vignali,
2001). McDonalds originally used globalized and standardized marketing strategies, but
moved toward glocalization as it began to enter markets that were more culturally distant
from its own (Dumitrescu & Vinerean, 2010).
Vignali (2001) provides an assessment of McDonalds’ glocalization of its marketing mix.
Although McDonalds does use a standardized menu in its global operations, it also has
traditionally adapted this menu to account for local religious, cultural, traditional, or other
preferences. Some examples of religious and cultural adaptations include removing cheese
from Big Macs as a standard offering to comply with Kosher dietary rules and introducing
vegetarian and lamb dishes in Indian markets. Cultural preferences are also accounted for
with adaptations to the menu such as teriyaki chicken (Japan) and guava juice (tropical
countries). McDonalds has also adapted its pricing strategies for different markets,
positioning itself as an affordable choice in some markets and a premium choice in others.
Typically, McDonalds uses competitors in a given market as a benchmark for the price it can
realize for its products, pricing its product at or below competitor prices. The marketing
strategy, including advertising, public relations, sponsorship, and other promotional
channels, is also adapted for the new market. However, less adaptation is shown in other
areas, including quality, production processes, and physical locations. The human resource
management (HRM) strategies of the company uses mainly American norms, but with some
required adaptations (Vignali, 2001). This case shows the way in which customer-facing
aspects of the company’s marketing are localized to some extent, underlying processes
remain based on the firm’s global strategy.
McDonalds’ use of an extensive glocalization approach has provided consumers in some
markets with significant advantages. One example is India, which the firm entered in 1996
following market liberalization (Fernandes, 2013). As this author pointed out, McDonalds’
global menu is unworkable for many Indian consumers because of the dietary restrictions
associated with many Indian religions. For example, followers of the Jain religion are
vegetarian, while Hindu followers do not eat beef and Muslim followers do not eat pork.
Thus, glocalization was essential for these consumers, since McDonalds standards like the
Big Mac and McRib would not be acceptable. However, McDonalds went further than simply
changing menu items, including taking advice from local management and developing a new
flagship product (the mutton Maharajah Mac) and new vegetarian products and eliminating
beef and pork from the menus and restaurants (Fernandes, 2013). At the same time,
application of standard quality and safety procedures including standardized sourcing and
maintenance of cold chain and food safety meant that consumers were provided with safe

11. 8
food at a relatively low price (Nandini, 2014). Thus, because McDonalds used a glocalization
strategy, consumers could access safe, good quality food that was culturally appropriate and
designed for local tastes, as well as relatively affordable.
McDonalds, and its imitators, and their use of glocalization have also had some
disadvantages for consumers. A study conducted in the Philippines showed that McDonalds
and its competitors were associated with a rise in obesity (Matejowsky, 2009). The food
offered on the standard menu, as well as localized adaptations, were higher in calories and
lower in nutritional quality than traditional local foods. However, they were also extremely
popular with consumers, particularly consumer segments like children and young adults,
who were eager to engage with McDonalds as a global brand. This sometimes led to heavy
consumption of McDonalds and other fast food products, particularly in segments where fast
food was associated with novelty and a global or cosmopolitan outlook (Matejowsky, 2009).
McDonalds’ use of glocalization is obviously one of the keys to its own success, with
adapted menus, pricing, and marketing strategies being essential to meet market conditions
in its globalized markets. This does have benefits for consumers, who gain access to food
that fits their cultural and religious requirements and preferences at an affordable price.
However, McDonalds and its competitors have not altered their approaches to nutrition,
which means that consumers are also offered products that contribute to obesity.
2.5 Coca-Cola
Another of the classic cases of glocalization is American soft drink manufacturer Coca-Cola
(Ritzer, 2003). Coca-Cola’s history of glocalization is very similar to that of McDonalds. As
one author points out, Coca-Cola was also one of the first firms that used a standardized
global marketing strategy beginning in the 1950s and 1960s (as with McDonalds)
(Dumitrescu & Vinerean, 2010). However, early failures in the company’s marketing
strategy, such as in the potentially major market of India, redirected the firm’s marketing
strategy toward a more glocalized approach (Prahalad & Lieberthal, 1998). In more recent
decades, the firm has used a glocalized marketing strategy, with its flagship brand Coca-
Cola (as well as complementary brands like Diet Coke/Coke Light) being supplemented by
more than 200 additional products (Vrontis & Sharp, 2003). These brands, some of which
were designed by the Coca-Cola Company and some of which were acquired on local
markets, are selectively introduced to different markets based on local tastes and
preferences. The firm uses standardized processes and market entry strategies, using
standard market entry packages with moderate adaptations for consumer preference
(Vrontis & Sharp, 2003). The firm’s marketing communication strategies are adapted not just

12. 9
for local language, but also for local cultures and communication preferences (Tian, 2006).
In India, this strategy is taken even further (Fernandes, 2013). While the metropolitan Indian
market approach is characterized by the strapline “Life ho to aisi” (emphasizing Coca-Cola
as a tool for social communication, bonding, and global access), in rural markets and smaller
towns the brand uses “Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola” (emphasizing the refreshing and thirst-
quenching nature of the product itself) (Fernandes, 2013).
One of the advantages to consumers of the glocalized communication strategy that Coca-
Cola has chosen is that communication is understandable and consistent with cultural
preferences, while remaining globally oriented (Tian, 2006). This communication approach
connects to local trends and preferences for communication, for example through the
website demand and content associated with Chinese cultural trends. However, it also
connects to Coca-Cola’s broader marketing strategy, allowing Chinese consumers to bridge
global cultures and communications (Tian, 2006). Thus, like Starbucks, Coca-Cola provides
consumers with a space to approach global culture through their own experience.
Coca-Cola has not had immediate success with its attempts at glocalization. For example,
after its original failure in the Indian market in the 1970s, it re-entered in 1993, but did not
gain a leading market share until 2006 (Fernandes, 2013). This suggests that, like Starbucks
customers in Australia, customers of the firm did not find the company’s glocalization efforts
convincing. Furthermore, many of the same disadvantages as McDonalds, such as its
impact on nutrition and health (Matejowsky, 2009), are also likely to apply to consumers of
Coca-Cola, which is also associated with internationalization of obesity (Nesheim & Nestle,
2015). This problem again relates to concerns expressed by Davidson (2009) in his
discussion on the ethics of marketing to BOP consumers, that global products may not be
appropriate for local markets because of their negative potential impacts.
2.6 Nike
The final case study regards the American sporting goods manufacturer Nike. Nike provides
an interesting contrast to previous cases, because the cultural domain of sport is different
from that of consumer household goods, food and drink, or socialization, as with previous
case studies. As one author notes, Nike’s marketing campaigns are also highly nationalist,
tied to the concept of sporting as an activity of constructing national identity (Kobayashi,
2012). Nike’s glocalization must be viewed in light of the glocalization of sport, which for
many sports is advanced and entrenched (Giulianotti & Robertson, 2004). These authors
pointed to football as one of the most glocalized sport. Although governed at the top level by
international agencies and played according to international rules, football has been

13. 10
intensively localized, with a different position and meaning in different national cultures. This
glocalization extends to the sponsors of football as well; for example, the author points to
different uses of Coca-Cola, from an alcohol mixer (Scottish consumers) to a component of
juju or luck ceremonies (West African consumers) (Giulianotti & Robertson, 2004). Nike, a
major sponsor of football at the highest level, must be considered in this context of
glocalization.
Kobayashi’s (2012) study focused on the 2007 “Where is the next?” campaign, which was
sponsored by Nike; the campaign was based on an inter-Asian tournament in order to win
the representation for the region in the FIFA Confederation Cup. This campaign is
interesting because it demonstrates many of the problems of the glocalization strategy. First,
the campaign was conceptualized as a regional campaign, addressing Asia as a unitary
region. The marketing campaign was designed to take into account language and cultural
preferences, but was only produced for the four largest football markets (China, Japan,
Australia and South Korea). Furthermore, although the need to localize the content and
approach of marketing was acknowledged, marketers did not actually identify what kinds of
localization were preferred by consumers in these markets. For example, although the
campaigns were constructed for visual reference to nationalist symbols, the marketing
designers chose to use a single football player (Brazilian player Ronald de Assis Moreira,
known as Ronaldinho). This decision was justified because Ronaldinho was considered to
be the best player in the world at the time and considered to be a global player. In order to
introduce a local element, the company developed the marketing campaign in cooperation
with local directors, who added a stronger concept of local and national signifiers
(Kobayashi, 2012).
This case study identified a clear disadvantage of glocalization for consumers. Specifically,
the campaign relied on a stereotyped concept of national identity and assumed homogeneity
across four very different cultures, while assuming that these cultures could stand in as
substitutes for the remainder of “Asia”. Thus suggests a form of faux glocalization, using a
superficial veneer of local signifiers over an essentially standardized campaign built on
assumptions about universal preferences (for example, the assumption of Ronaldinho as the
preferred footballer for all markets). This type of superficially localized marketing creates a
commodification of national identity, which uses the nationalistic tropes as a means of selling
to rather than connecting to customers (Kobayashi, 2012). This approach also forces the
emergence of a preferred form of glocalization from the marketer, rather than preferences
emerging from the market itself (Giulianotti & Robertson, 2012). In contrast, the advantages
of glocalization of this campaign – connection to a global sport through localized
preferences, norms and position of football in the local culture – stem from its position in the
context of a globalized sport.

14. 11
3. Conclusion and Recommendations
3.1 Conclusion
The case studies above, including marketing to BOP consumers, cultural dimensions,
Starbucks, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and Nike, offered different insights. Discussion of BOP
consumers and cultural dimensions showed some of the differences in consumer markets
that need to be accounted for. In the business cases, a strong global brand identity is
maintained, along with underlying processes and procedures. However, companies showed
different approaches to globalizing their content. McDonalds, Starbucks and Coca-Cola all
varied their product offerings in order to meet local taste and cultural preferences, while
communicating in appropriate language and channels. Nike’s approach was less localized,
but introduced local knowledge through the knowledge of directors. Marketers of products to
BOP consumers, on the other hand, are encouraged to adapt products extensively, including
formulations and packaging, in order to meet consumer needs. These strategies are not
always successful, but they do demonstrate a more nuanced approach to marketing than a
standardized, global marketing approach.
There are a number of advantages of glocalized marketing to consumers. First, glocalized
marketing offers consumers products that are more appropriate for their culture. For
example, McDonalds menu modifications offers products that are consistent with religious
and cultural food norms as well as trends and taste preferences, while Coca-Cola’s brands
offer consumers an adaptable selection of domestic and international products. Second,
glocalization offers consumers a way to experience other cultures and integrate a
multicultural component into their personal identities as well as cultural norms. An example
of this is the third space of Starbucks, which is made accessible through its international
stores. Finally, glocalization as applied to BOP consumers offers access to consumer
products that can help alleviate poverty and integrate lower income countries into global
flows of production and consumption.
Glocalization also has a number of disadvantages. One of the most obvious disadvantages
is the potential ethical concerns, particularly for BOP consumers but also for others.
Glocalization of products can result in introduction of unnecessary consumer products or
unintended health effects, as Westernized products are introduced into unprepared markets.
Consumers may also reject the imposition of glocalized products, as shown in the case of
Starbucks; this rejection can come about because of perceived inauthenticity, inappropriate
connections to consumer needs, or simple preference for existing norms. Thus, glocalization
may not provide consumers with anything they want to integrate into their own cultures.

15. 12
Furthermore, glocalization can result in commodification of cultural aspects such as national
identity, as shown by the Nike case. This type of commodification may be more likely to
occur in cases like Nike, where inadequate preparation and understanding of the local
culture are used. However, it should always be a concern. These disadvantages mean that
firms need to be careful in designing glocalization strategies.
3.2 Recommendations
The main recommendation for marketers using a glocalization strategy that can be derived
from this report is that they need to be aware that glocalization is an unpredictable, local
process that depends on the interaction between consumers and the brand. This can vary
even when using the same strategy with the same brand. For example, while consumers in
China view Starbucks as a bridge to Western culture and a status symbol, consumers in
Australia completely rejected Starbucks in favour of the strong local coffee culture. This
suggests that marketers need to be prepared for their brands to interact with the local culture
in an unpredictable way, and be able to identify changes that could occur in the brand’s
position.
A secondary recommendation is that the firm should consider the ethical implications of its
glocalization strategy for the consumers in the market. The case of BOP consumers showed
that there could be serious ethical concerns, such as creating demand for unnecessary
products or even harmful products. However, this problem is not limited to BOP consumers.
The cases of McDonalds and Coca-Cola showed that introduction of Western food products
has resulted in increased obesity and health problems. Nike’s superficial nationalization of
its sport campaign shows another ethical concern, that of commodification of national
identity. Firms must consider the potential problems that their glocalization campaigns can
cause and, where possible, seek to mitigate these problems.

16. 13
References
Davidson, K. (2009) Ethical concerns at the bottom of the pyramid: Where CSR meets BOP.
Journal of International Business Ethics, 2 (1), 22-32.
Dumitrescu, L. & Vinerean, S. (2010) The glocal strategy of global brands. Studies in
Business and Economics, 5 (3), 147-55.
Fernandes, S. (2013) A case study approach on Indian companies and global companies
entry in foreign marekts - An analysis of glocalization strategies. Journal of Business
Management and Social Sciences Research, 2 (1), 30-39.
Giulianotti, R. & Robertson, R. (2004) The globalization of football: A study in the
glocalization of the 'serious life'. The British Journal of Sociology, 55 (4), 545-68.
Giulianotti, R. & Robertson, R. (2012) Glocalization and sport in Asia: Diverse perspectives
and future possibilities. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29, 433-54.
Guesalaga, R. & Marshall, P. (2008) Purchasing power at the bottom of the pyramid:
Differences across geographic regions and income tiers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25
(7), 413-18.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind. 3rd ed. London, McGraw-Hill.
Kobayashi, K. (2012) Corporate nationalism and glocalization of Nike advertising in "Asia":
Production and representation practices of cultural intermediaries. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 29, 42-61.
Matejowsky, T. (2009) Fast food and nutritional perceptions in the age of "globesity":
Perspectives from the provincial Philippines. Food and Foodways: Explorations in the
History and Culture of Human Nourishment, 17 (1), 29-49.
Matusitz, J. (2010) Disneyland Paris: A case analysis demonstrating how glocalization
works. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18 (3), 223-37.
McGuire, J.S. & Hu, D. (2013) Not a simple coffee shop: Local, global and glocal dimensions
of the consumption of Starbucks in China. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race,
nation and Culture, 19 (5), 670-84.

17. 14
Miracle, G.E. (2008) Historical perspectives on international advertising. Communicative
Business, 1, 54-73.
Nandini, A.S. (2014) McDonald's success story in India. Journal of Contemporary Research
in Management, 9 (3), 21-31.
Nesheim, M.C. & Nestle, M. (2015) The internationalization of the obesity epidemic: The
case of sugar-sweetened sodas. In The Fight Against Hunger and Malnutrition: The Role of
Food, Agriculture and Targeted Policies. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Patterson, P.G., Scott, J. & Uncles, M.D. (2010) How the local competititon defeated a
global brand: The case of Starbucks. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18 (1), 41-47.
Prahalad, C.K. & Lieberthal, K. (1998) The end of corporate imperialism. Harvard Business
Review, 76 (4), 69-78.
Pralahad, C.K. (2006) The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through
profits. NJ, Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.
Ritzer, G. (2003) Rethinking globalization: Glocalization/grobalization and
something/nothing. Sociological Theory, 21 (3), 193-204.
Sinclair, J. & Wilken, R. (2009) Strategic regionalization in marketing campaigns: Beyond the
standardization/glocalization debate. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 23
(2), 147-57.
Terlutter, R., Diehl, S. & Mueller, B. (2006) The GLOBE study - applicability of a new
typology of cultural dimensions for cross-cultural marketing and advertising research. In
International Advertising and Communication. London: Springer. 419-36.
Thompson, C.J. & Arsel, Z. (2004) The Starbucks landscape and consumers' (anticorporate)
experiences of glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 631-42.
Tian, Y. (2006) Communicating with local publics: A case study of Coca-Cola's Chinese
website. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 11 (1), 13-22.

18. 15
Tung, R.L. (2008) The cross-national research imeperative: The need to balance cross-
national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 41-46.
Vignali, C. (2001) McDonalds: "Think global, act local" - The marketing mix. British Food
Journal, 103 (2), 97-111.
Vrontis, D. & Sharp, I. (2003) The strategic positioning of Coca-Cola in their global marketing
operation. The Marketing Review, 3, 289-309.
Wong, N.C.W. (2015) Starbuckization. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption
and Consumer Studies. NJ, John Wiley and Sons.
Wood, V.R., Pitta, D.A. & Franzak, F.J. (2008) Successful marketing by multinational firms to
the bottom of the pyramid: Connecting share of heart, global "umbrella brands", and
responsible marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (7), 419-29.