“Global Consumer Culture is a beguiling illusion that completely glosses over the hard realities of national, ethnic and religious differences. It is therefore a dangerous fiction for the marketing manager to engage with.” Discuss, with examples.
Introduction
Globalization has made a more variety of products available for all consumers. In this sense, globalization increases differences, rather than generate homogenization (Lee & Usunier, 2009). Moreover, global influences are adapted to local circumstances; therefore, globalization results in an increasingly cultural diversity. The existence of a global consumer culture does not imply the disappearance of differences; rather, the modern culture results in the sum of these differences (Arnett, 2002).
Global consumer culture (GCC) is a new stratum of common culture that superimpose on national cultures (Lee and Usunier, 2009) in the same way in which these overlap local traditions and subcultures existing within national boundaries, given the fact that most countries are already multicultural (Smith, 1991).
Notably, it has been argued that culture is the most influential factor on consumer behaviour (Cleveland and Laroche, 2007); consequently, it is important to define the extent to which a modern global culture determine purchasing decisions, and these insights should inform marketing strategies. Therefore, the question is whether a GCC does exist, in which sense it should be interpreted, and how it does affect national cultures and consumers’ behaviour.
The present essay supports the idea that even if the GCC influences consumers’ behaviours around the world, people are still likely to strongly identify with their own national culture. Yet, they adopt their local system of meanings when interpreting global symbols. Consumers shift between the consumption of local and global products, re-interpreting brands circumstantially and according to their ends (Simmons, 2008). They use consumption as a mean of constructing different selves and avoiding monotony (Goulding, 2003).
Before entering the discussion, the essay presents a literature review thematically organized. Then, the discussion is divided into three parts. The first argues that consumers tend to identify with both a global and a local identity, depending on the context. The diffusion of Christian holidays in countries with different religious traditions, is given as an example of global identity seeking. Budapest citizens’ reluctance to accept Coca Cola as sponsor of their traditional Christmas decorations, is given as an example of strong local identity seeking. The second part focuses on how consumers purchase global brands and adopt global practices re-investing them with values from their own culture. The circulation of a secularized yoga around the world is an example of how foreign practices are locally reinterpreted. Lastly, before moving towards the conclusion, the third part highlights that meanings vary not only between cultures but also depending on contextual factors.
Literature review
The GCC has been interpreted in four main ways, these being the diffusion of transnational corporations, the explosion of global capitalism, the increase of consumerism and the homogenization of the consumption behaviour regardless of national boundaries (Ger & Belk, 1996).
This last interpretation, the concept of a global cultural convergence towards a modern lifestyle, most promotes vigorous debate. Some academics (e.g., Levitt, 1983) emphasize growing similarities between cultures; conversely, some others (e.g., Ger & Belk, 1996) highlight the strengthening of cultural differences between countries as a direct consequence of the globalization. In a different vein, the complexity of globalization, characterized by both homogeneity and heterogeneity, is outlined by authors (e.g., Cleveland & Laroche, 2007;) who do not consider acculturation and ethnic identity inversely proportional.
A thematically organized literature review is provided below. The first section reviews authors who have mainly focused on similarities between cultures or mainly on dissimilarities. The second section reviews authors who have considered both homogeneity and heterogeneity as a consequence of the globalization.
GCC as homogeneity vs. GCC as heterogeneity
In its purest form, the idea of a global cultural convergence is supported by Levitt (1983) who stated that, as a consequence of globalization, consumers will look for high quality and low prices, independently from their origins. In this utilitarian view, traditional diversity in national tastes would wane. In an opposite vein, Hofstede (1983) developed the concept of within-country homogeneity and between-country diversities. He individualized the national culture dimensions, which relate to very essential problems which any human society face, but to which diverse societies have found different solutions.
Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (1999) considered the GCC as a commonly understood and accepted set of symbols. They introduced a new paradigm named global consumer culture positioning (GCCP) that is a strategy employed by many firms when promoting their products. The study carried out by Alden et al. (1999) on the television advertising from seven different countries, provides evidence of the broad utilization of the GCCP tactic, opposed to local or foreign brand positioning. The authors argued that in order to reach particular segments in different countries, firms use a globally common language (English), universal aesthetic styles (e.g., spokesperson globally well recognized) and common story themes (e.g., use of the latest technology as sign of membership in the modern global culture). In addition, the authors found that the product type is significantly related to brand positioning. Durable high tech goods are more likely to be positioned globally because symbols related to technology are easily internationally shared. It is also indicated that in GCCP soft-selling techniques, based on indirect and image-oriented content, are preferable to hard selling strategies, based on direct and message-oriented content.
GCC as both homogeneity and heterogeneity
In response to a lack of research that consider local and global forces simultaneously, Cleveland and Laroche (2007) took into consideration the complexity of globalization and determined to which extent the global consumer segments exist. They conducted an empirical study and created a six dimensional scale for measuring acculturation to GCC and correlated it to democratic features of the consumer. The authors asserted that similarities and dissimilarities should be considered in a continuum of cultural changes. They shed light on the validity of acculturation to GCC supporting the idea that, as a result of globalization, cultures are subject to changes. They argued that culture is not genetically transmitted; therefore, any human being can technically acquire the culture of the place where s/he is through a process of acculturation. This process is not necessary inversely proportional to the ethnic identity, that is the individual identification with particular cultural groups. Therefore, they considered both ethnic identification and acculturation multidimensional and circumstantially determined and they argued that individuals can identify with more than one culture depending on circumstances.
Arnett (2002) focused on the psychological consequences of globalization on individual identity. Principally, the author argued that most people worldwide now develop a bicultural identity that results from their local identity combined with a global culture identity. The author affirmed that globalization has widen the range of choices and that the process of identity definition has became more active as people are free to chose about what is important to them and how to achieve it. Therefore, also Arnett (2002) supported the concept that individuals can identify with more than one culture, and that globalization results in an increasingly cultural diversity as global influences are adapted to local circumstances.
Similarly, Akaka and Alden (2010), stated that while traditions and values are not converging, a demand for global brands is strong among some segments. The authors did not consider GCC in terms of homogenization; rather, it represents the global diffusion of consumption signs and behaviours.
However, they highlighted that consumers use their own local meaning system when interpreting and displaying these symbols and behaviours. Akaka and Alden (2010) reviewed the concept of global consumer culture positioning (Cleveland & Laroche, 2007) in order to study international advertising in the context of GCC. They found out that global brand advertising may most benefit the displaying of attributes considered desirable at the global level, such as quality and prestige; in combination with local language, images and themes. The authors suggested that GCC does not correspond to one global market segment; rather, it indicates symbols and behaviours internationally shared. They underlined the importance of identifying further groups of consumers who, as young people, cosmopolitans and brand communities, are associated with GCC.
Discussion
The present essay supports the idea that GCC does not correspond to the existence of one global market segment; rather, it indicates the presence of market segments that share symbols and behaviours regardless of geographical boundaries (Akaka & Alden, 2010). Even if consumers are willing to be part of the global communities which correspond to these market segments (Steenkamp, Batra & Alden, 2003), consumers are still likely to strongly identify with local cultures.
Moreover, consumers tend to use their own local meaning system when interpreting and displaying these globally shared symbols and behaviours (Akaka & Alden, 2010). As a consequence of the fact that influences are adapted to local circumstances, globalization results in an increasingly cultural diversity and does not imply the disappearance of differences (Arnett, 2002).
Consumers’ purchasing behaviour shift between the consumption of global brands and local products depending on the identity (cosmopolitan vs. national) that they want to show in a particular context (Cleveland and Laroche, 2007). They exploit consumption in order to construct diverse self-images and find the novelty they seek (Simmons, 2008).
Global and local identities
It has been argued that global brands tend to be associated with higher quality and prestige compared with local brands (Keller, 1998; Batra et al., 2000). Moreover, the diffusion of global brands and their entrance in people’s everyday life, has been said to have created a global identity and global communities of which people feel to be members when consuming global brands (Steenkamp, Batra & Alden, 2003).
Nevertheless, the existence of a modern global identity and culture should not be confused with an homogenization of local cultures and their consequent disappearance. In fact, it is important to bear in mind that, as Arnett (2002) stated, individuals can identify with more than one culture. Therefore, it seems logical that consumers are likely to purchase global brands when they are willing to show their global citizenship, and that they belong to a modern globalized world. A sign of the membership in the modernity could be, for instance, the spread of religious holidays linked with Christianity in countries, such as China, with a different religious tradition (Zukin & Maguire, 2004).
Nevertheless, even if consumers are willing to belong to the global communities which internationally share symbols and behaviours, they are still likely to strongly identify with local culture. In fact, simultaneously to the creation of a GCC, local traditions remain strong and consumers show their ethnic identity, sometimes even stronger than before as a reaction to the globalization. The disapproval showed by local citizens in Budapest when, in 1996, the Coca Cola Company offered to sponsor the Christmas decorations of the historic Chain Bridge, is a good example of this; the local tradition of Christmas adornments was defended against the GCC of which Coca Cola is one of the best-known symbols (Zukin & Maguire, 2004).
The local reinterpretation of the global
In the first section of the discussion, I have argued that a global consumer culture and local cultures coexist as a consequence of the globalization. Consumers identify alternatively with these two ways of life, depending on circumstances.
This section shed light on how the GCC is subject to diverse local interpretations. In fact, consumers tend to use their own local meaning system when interpreting and displaying globally shared symbols and behaviours, and when consuming products or experiences selected from the wide range of choices made available by the globalization (Akaka & Alden, 2010). Therefore, as Levy et al. (2007) suggested, it is evident that cosmopolitans, members of the GCC, are not universal in the sense of being identical around the world; rather, they should be seen as people who conciliate the global with the local.
Consequently, it becomes evident that foreign products or activities might be consumed by people regardless of their cultural background, exactly because the values and the meanings which are behind foreign traditions are locally reinterpreted. In this way, logically, when local consumption activities cross borders, they might deeply change and eventually become global fashionable practices. The circulation of yoga around the world is a good example of how local practices might transform and be subject to a modern reinterpretation which allows them to penetrate culturally distant markets.
Yoga, originally an Indian mainly male spiritual and religious practice, was discovered by westerns who imported it back home. Since then, it has been tailored to a modern meaning trough a process of secularization which linked this practice to health, freedom and body care (Askegaard & Eckhardt, 2012). Therefore, it is manifest that what allowed yoga to fit globally, is not a western acquisition of Indian doctrine; rather, its association with fitness, one of the primary western modern markets.
It appears evident how global consumers purchase global brands and adopt global practices re-investing them with values from their own culture. As a consequence of the local adaptation of global influences, as Arnett (2002) stated, globalization results in an increasingly cultural diversity. Therefore, reasonably, the existence of a GCC does not imply the disappearance of differences; rather consumers around the world chose from the vast array of products, practices and experiences which the global culture offer them and which they exploit to satisfy their novelty-seeking, typical of the global consumerism era (Simmons, 2008).
The contextual reinterpretation of the global
So far, I have argued that ethnic identification and acculturation are multidimensional and circumstantially determined, that individuals can identify with more than one culture depending on contexts, and that they apply local meanings when interpreting global products and practices. This third section of the discussion highlights that meanings vary not only between cultures but also depending on contextual factors.
According to Bengtsson and Venkatraman (2008), consumers may adopt a different attitude towards global brands depending on the place where they are. For example, global brands can carry the meaning of predictability when the consumers are in a foreign context. In their home country, consumers might have a negative opinion on a global brand, but they may change their point of view when being in extraneous surroundings.
The Italians’ friendly attitude towards Starbucks when being abroad is a good example of this. Needless to say, coffee is an integral part of the Italian culture; therefore, Starbucks decided not to enter the market (Stephan, 2012). However, Italians might benefit from the predictability offered by Starbucks which sell them the some coffee and the same cheesecake whether in Boston, London, Paris, Beijing or Tokio.
Manifestly, as Simmons (2008) argued, meanings are no longer fixed and linked to their employments, but are fluctuating as each person may attribute the meanings s/he wishes to the objects, the products and the experience. Also according to Miller (2008), consumerism predisposes people to dissociate symbols and practices from their conventional contexts and to apply them as movable signifiers depending on their ends.
Conclusion
To conclude, a GCC has emerged as a consequence of the globalization and consumers seek both local and global identity. In fact, as Simmons (2008) argued, postmodern consumers present multiple representations of their identity and switch preferences between local and global products and brands circumstantially. For this reason, evidently, they chose from the vast assortment of products that the global culture, sum of different local cultures, offer them and which they exploit to satisfy their novelty seeking and avoid monotony.
Applying to global culture an expression that Miller (2008) used for religion, I would argue that we “consume” the emerging global culture abstracting symbols and practices from their original circumstances (e.g., yoga as Indian religious practice) and we re-appropriate them to our local traditions (e.g., yoga as fitness). Local system of meanings remain strong and consumers rely on them when interpreting products and experiences.
As a consequence, obviously, the aim of targeting consumers globally, should not be pursued through standardized advertising because global brand attributes might be interpreted differently in each national market. Therefore, as Torelli et al. (2012) has suggested, brand meanings should be internationally consistent; but, logically, companies might need to communicate them differently in order to be relevant to different local markets. Unquestionably, it is important for marketing managers to demonstrate their innovativeness, their capacity to find new ways to reach the audit they want to communicate with.
To sum up, marketing strategies and measures need to be adjusted to each national market (Keillor, d’Amico & Horton, 2011); and international marketers should not fall to “GCC’ charms”. Rather, they may want to be thinking about how important is the carrying out of further research which include cultural studies and would eventually enable the reaching of a better understanding of the values and interpretations that market segments are more likely to associate with GCC and why.
References
Akaka, M. A., & Alden, D. L. (2010). Global brand positioning and perceptions: International advertising and global consumer culture. International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 37-57.
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 75-87. Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774–783.
Askegaard, S., & Eckharcdt, G. M. (2012). Glocal yoga: Re-appropriation in the Indian consumptionscape. Marketing Theory, 12(1), 45-60.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B., & Ramachander, S. (2000). Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 83-95.
Bengtsson, A., & Venkatraman, M. (2008). The global brand’s meaning mélange: Seeking home abroad through global brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 822.
Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: Scale development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 249-259.
Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). I’d like to buy the world a coke: Consumptionscapes of the “less affluent world”. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(3), 271-304.
Goulding, C. (2003). Issues in representing the postmodern consumer. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(3), 152-159.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1), 46-74. Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lee, J. A., & Usunier, J. C. (2009). Marketing across cultures (5th ed.). Harlow, MA: Pearson Education Limited.
Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harward Business Review, 61, 92-102.
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about when we talk about “global mindset”: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 231-258. Miller, J. (2008). Consuming religion: Christian faith and practice in a consumer culture. New York: Continuum.
Keillor, B. D., d'Amico, M., & Horton, V. (2001). Global Consumer Tendencies. Psycology & Marketing, 18(1), 1-19.
Simmons, G. (2008). Marketing to postmodern consumers: introducing the internet chameleon. European Journal of Marketing 42(3/4), 299-310.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.
Steenkamp, J. B., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53-65.
Stephan, F. (2012). Grounds zero. Bloomberg Businessweek, 4266, 68-71.
Torelli, C. J., Ӧzsomer, A., Carvalho, S. W., Keh, H. T., & Maehle, N. (2012). Brand concepts as representations of human values: do cultural congruity and compatibility between values matter? Journal of Marketing 76(4), 92-108.
Zukin, S., & Maguire, J. S. (2004). Consumers and consumption. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 173-197.