LOCAL OR GLOBAL BRAND CHOICE:
DO TRAVELERS REALLY PREFER GLOBAL BRANDS?
Claudiu Dimofte
Katharina Zeugner-Roth
Johny Johansson
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Introduction and Study Purpose
It has become an article of faith among practitioners and researchers alike that global
brands have an advantage over local ones. Past research has consistently shown that global
brands engender more positive affect, enjoy stronger associations with quality and social
responsibility, and evoke a more appealing global myth (Dimofte, Johansson & Ronkainen,
2008; Holt, Quelch and Taylor, 2004; Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003). Furthermore,
marketers have asserted that one big advantage for global over local brands is the increasing
importance of the global traveler (Nijssen & Douglas, 2008). For the traveler, being able to find
the same brands everywhere lessens the unavoidable pain of foreign travel, reduces uncertainty,
and facilitates access to familiar and reliable products. It is therefore not surprising that literally
all of the Top 100 brands in the Interbrand list are global brands.
Interestingly, despite the consensus in the literature on the supremacy of global brands,
an increasing number of studies show that consumers prefer local brands. Not only are
consumers more familiar with local brands, they also appreciate them for their cultural roots and
greater uniqueness (Johansson and Ronkainen, 2005; Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004). If so, one
might suspect that the global travelers rather than opting for the well known and comfortable
global brand would attempt to try a local brand, especially in product categories where cultural
identity is salient. That is, when would (and when wouldn’t) the global traveler choose the safe
global brand when visiting a foreign country, the way global brand advocates argue?
1
This research addresses this question by investigating the choices made by global travelers
where both global and local brands are available in a foreign location. The product category studied
is beer, a product where both local and global brands are available in most markets, and for which
cultural identity and country preferences are often quite firmly established. It is also a product where
price is relatively uniform and comparable for both global and local brands, making brand name a
dominant attribute. We introduce socio-psychological characteristics of travelers, namely
cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism, as possible drivers of product choice, while controlling for more
traditional constructs such as loyalty, availability, and price. We also investigate the possible
moderating role of product ethnicity (i.e., degree to which certain origins are known for producing a
particular product) and consumption purpose on choice, distinguishing between a process versus an
outcome oriented context.
Key Choice Drivers
Many global travelers are by definition cosmopolitan, a construct describing “an openminded individual whose consumption orientation transcends any particular culture, locality or
community and who appreciates diversity including trying products and services from a variety
of countries” (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009, p. 415). Cosmopolitan consumers are thus not
necessarily as intimidated by foreign languages and cultures as the average traveler might be.
They may in fact travel precisely to savor the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of local cultures.
Research shows that some people display a strong home country bias in their product
evaluations and purchase intentions. They might think that purchasing products from foreign
countries hurts the domestic economy and puts local people out of jobs, or they may simply
believe that their domestic products are better. Another key driver of brand choice in a foreign
location might therefore be consumer ethnocentrism, which is defined as “beliefs held by […]
consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products”
(Shimp & Sharma, 1987, p. 280).
Research as well as per capita consumption figures also show that some nations are “beer
countries” (examples include Germany, Belgium and Japan), just as others are “wine countries”
(France and Italy, for example). Consumers from a country with a renowned beer tradition are
more likely to favor domestic brands and will likely be more ethnocentric in their beer choices
than other consumers. Countering this tendency will be their level of expertise, which might
2
induce less risk aversion. Also, the level of cosmopolitanism in general will similarly induce
more interest in experimentation with foreign beer brands.
Study Design and Hypotheses
The main purpose of our study is to analyze the extent to which cosmopolitanism and
ethnocentrism will influence consumers’ choice of local versus global beers when traveling
abroad. In what follows, the context is consumers’ intended beer choice in a foreign setting such
as a nation without a strong beer culture (China). To account for differences in the beer cultures
of consumers’ home country, consumer data will be collected in both a country with a rich beer
tradition (Belgium) and one with no particular beer tradition (the United States).
A number of articles on consumer preferences and choice in a foreign country context has
focused on socio-psychological characteristics of individual travelers (e.g., Samiee, 1994;
Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). One such trait that is particularly important at a global level is
cosmopolitanism (Cleveland, Laroche, & Papadopoulos, 2009; Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2009).
Cosmopolitan consumers are not intimidated by foreign languages and cultures but may in fact
travel precisely to savor the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of local cultures. Cosmopolitanism
thus tends to induce a process-focused consumption process behavior wherein the experience of
a novel activity produces satisfaction (Escalas & Luce, 2003, 2004; Zhao, Hoeffler, &
Zauberman, 2007). The sample of brands in their consideration set is large, as is quality variance.
The search for something different and new is valued over reliability (Holt, 1997). These
consumers are likely to try a local brand.
H1: Cosmopolitan consumers (Belgian or American), when traveling, will be likely to
choose a local over a global beer brand.
Research shows that some people display a strong home country bias in their product
evaluations and purchase intentions. They might think that purchasing products from foreign
countries hurts the domestic economy and puts local people out of jobs, or they may simply
believe that their domestic products are better. Another key driver of brand choice in a foreign
location is therefore consumer ethnocentrism. Ethnocentric consumers are outcome focused, that
is, they consider the impact of their choice more than the consumption process as such. They will
favor their home global beer brands over a local beer or foreign global beer brands when abroad.
3
H2: Ethnocentric consumers (Belgian or American) will be likely to choose a home
global over a local or foreign global beer brand when traveling.
These effects will be moderated by the degree to which travelers’ home country is known
for beer production or not (also called “product ethnicity”, see Usunier & Cestre, 2007).
Especially for consumers from a country with an acknowledged beer tradition, such preferences
will moderate the tendency to which even cosmopolitan beer drinkers will look for a local brand
when abroad. This will affect the choices made in a country such as China. The perceived
superiority of their domestic beers may prevent those consumers from experimentation and risk
taking. By contrast, cosmopolitan consumers from less renowned beer countries will be more
willing to take risks.
H3: Cosmopolitan consumers from countries with a strong tradition (such as Belgium)
traveling abroad are more likely to revert to a global beer from their own country
than those from a country with weaker tradition (such as the United States).
H4: Ethnocentric consumers from a country with a weaker beer tradition are more likely
to revert to a global brand that does not come from their home country than
ethnocentric consumers from a country with a strong beer tradition.
One of the main benefits of global brand purchase for consumers (in particular in
developing countries) involves their social signaling dimension (cf. Holt et al., 2004). To the
extent that global brand choices are perceived to enhance the buyer's perception by others, the
social context in which the choice takes place will be important. If others are present, global
brands provide enhanced self-presentation benefits and will be favored over local brands, while
this effect will not emerge if consumers make choices alone (i.e., without others present). The
more cosmopolitan consumers, however, are less likely to be concerned with this issue (since
their choices are driven by experiential reasons) and this effect will be tempered for them. We
thus expect the following interaction:
H5: Consumers low on cosmopolitanism will favor global beer choices in social contexts
that feature other individuals over situations when they choose alone. The effect will
not emerge for consumers high on cosmopolitanism.
4
We already highlighted the fact that cosmopolitan consumers are proposed to be processfocused whereas ethnocentric consumers tend to be outcome focused. Research on process
versus outcome focus further shows that by priming process-oriented consumers into an outcome
orientation and vice-versa can also affect their choice (Escalas & Luce, 2003; Escalas & Luce,
2004; Zhao et al., 2007). In contrast to some of the extant literature on process versus outcome
focus (e.g., Pham & Taylor, 1999; Zhao et al., 2007) in which this focus was seen as a
momentary mental stimulation task that has an impact on subsequent dependent variables, in our
study, the reasoning behind a consumer’s beer choice is seen as an underlying (i.e., chronic)
individual trait. Thus, depending on the degree of cosmopolitanism, for example, consumers will
start form a process or outcome focused perspective. In line with Zhao et al. (2007), who
reversed temporal construal effects (i.e., preference inconsistencies over time were made
constant), in our paper, we will try to reverse beer choice (or at least shift preference) by placing
respondents from an outcome to a process based evaluation and vice-versa. This will be done by
a mental simulation exercise where process-focused people will be put into an outcome focused
information processing mode and vice-versa. We therefore expect that:
H6: Placing cosmopolitan consumers in an outcome-focused cognitive mode makes them
more likely to choose a global beer brand. Placing ethnocentric consumers in a
process-focused cognitive mode makes them more likely to choose a local beer
brand.
Finally, marketplace observation suggests that from a marketing strategy perspective
many global beers are positioned as premium brands that are supposed to be enjoyed in the
company of special others (family or friends, see Heineken’s strategy). The social aspect of beer
consumption is an important element to consider, since (as a vast literature on conspicuous
consumption finds), there is signaling value associated with certain products or categories. It is
therefore possible that adjusting the consumption scenario from a single-buyer to a group setting
will produce adjustments in beer brand choice. In particular, we propose that consumers are more
likely to choose global brands in the presence of others and that they are less likely to be
consistent in their personal choices if a choice instance has a social component. Thus:
H7: The presence of others will produce (a) more preference for global brands and (b)
less loyalty to a consumer’s personal preference.
5
Methodology
We propose a two stage empirical test: (1) a pre-study with an online scenario-based
quasi-experiment among students to pre-test our assumptions and manipulations, and (2) a
survey that will be conducted in the U.S. and in (the Dutch part of) Belgium.
Measures and Stimuli
The home countries are Belgium and the U.S., respectively. As foreign country, China is
chosen–a nation that is neither perceived as a beer nor a wine country. This allows for both U.S.
and Belgian consumers to be faced with an identical scenario that enables us to compare
responses directly. As all scales have been originally developed in English, the Belgian
questionnaire will be translated into Dutch using the translation back-translation procedure
(Behling & Law, 2000; Brislin, 1986). The translated questionnaire will be subsequently pretested with 20 consumers using the protocol approach (Reynolds, Diamantopoulos, &
Schlegelmilch, 1993) to ensure that all items are comprehensible and no difficulties in answering
occurs.
The dependent variables involve a choice between global and local beers as well as
measures of the process and anticipated outcomes (see items and scenarios in Appendix 1). As
the main aim of the pre-test was to test our assumptions and manipulation checks, most
constructs are measured using single-item measures in the pre-study. In the main study, full
scales will be employed, in order to be able to assess the reliability and validity of the constructs
in our study (for a discussion on advantages and disadvantages of single-item measurement, see
Diamantopoulos, 2005; Rossiter, 2002). Consumer ethnocentrism is measured with the five-item
version of the CETSCALE which has been previously validated in a survey of more than 3000
consumers across the EU (Steenkamp, Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999). Consumer cosmopolitanism is
operationalized based on the three-dimensional structure proposed by Riefler and
Diamantopoulos (2009). Each dimension was measured with 4 items. All items were rated on a
Likert-type format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To account for
common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), apart from procedural
remedies (e.g., guarantee of anonymity, counter-balancing question order), a marker variable
(e.g., social desirability) will be included in the questionnaire.
6
References
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Batra, R. 2006. Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketplace
Globalization: Structure, Antecedents and Consequences. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23: 227-239.
Allison, R. E. & Uhl, K. P. 1964. Influence of Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception. Journal
of Marketing Research,(August): 36-39.
Behling, O. & Law, K. S. 2000. Translating Questionnaires and other Research Instruments:
Problems and Solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brislin, Richard W. 1986. The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. In W. J. Lonner &
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research: 137-64. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. 2009. Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism,
and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of
International Marketing, 17(1): 116.
Diamantopoulos, A. 2005. The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing: A
Comment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22: 1-9.
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J., & Ronkainen, I. 2008. Cognitive and Affective Reactions of American
Consumers to Global Brands, Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 115-137.
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2009. The Customer Equity of Global Brands.
Unpublished Working Paper.
Escalas, J. E. & Luce, M. F. 2003. Process Versus Outcome Thought Focus and Advertising. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 13(3): 246-254.
Escalas, J. E. & Luce, M. F. 2004. Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus OutcomeFocused Thought in Response to Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(September):
274-285.
Holt, D. B. 1997. Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of
Consumption in Postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4): 326-350.
Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. & Taylor, E.L. 2004, How Global Brands Compete, Harvard Business
Review, 82 (9), 68-81.
Ittersum, K. v., Candel, M. J. J. M., & Meulenberg, M. T. G. 2003. The Influence of the Image of a
Product's Region of Origin on Product Evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 56(3): 215226.
Johansson, J.K. and Ronkainen, I.A. (2005), The Esteem of Global Brands, Journal of Brand
Management, 12 (5): 339-54.
7
Nijssen, E. & Douglas, S. P. 2008. Consumer World-Mindedness, Social-Mindedness, and Store
Image. Journal of International Marketing, 16(3): 84-107.
Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. 1994. Consumer Knowledge Assessment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(1): 71-82.
Pham, L. B. & Taylor, S. E. 1999. From Thought to Action: Effects of Process-Versus OutcomeBased Mental Simulations on Performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25(2): 250-260.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Reynolds, N. L., Diamantopoulos, A., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. 1993. Pretesting in Questionnaire
Design: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Further Research. Journal of the
Market Research Society, 35(2): 171-182.
Riefler, P. & Diamantopoulos, A. 2009. Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and Replication of the
CYMYC Scale. Journal of Business Research, 62(4): 407-419.
Rossiter, J. R. 2002. The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 19: 305-335.
Samiee, S. 1994. Customer Evaluation of Products in a Global Market. Journal of International
Business Studies, 25(3): 579-604.
Schuiling, I. & Kapferer, J.-N. 2004, Executive Insights: Real Differences Between Local and
International Brands: Strategic Implications for International Marketers, Journal of
International Marketing, 12 (4): 97-112.
Shimp, T. A. & Sharma, S. 1987. Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the
CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3): 280-289.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Hofstede, F. t., & Wedel, M. 1999. A Cross-National Investigation into the
Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness. Journal of
Marketing, 63(2): 55-69.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. 2003. How perceived brand globalness creates
brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 53-65.
Usunier, J.-C. & Cestre, G. 2007. Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match Between Products and
Countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3): 32-72.
Verlegh, P. W. J. & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. 1999. A Review and Meta-Analysis of Country-ofOrigin Research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5): 521-546.
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. 2007. Mental Simulation and Preference Consistency Over
Time: The Role of Process-Versus Outcome-Focused Thoughts. Journal of Marketing
Research, 44(3): 379-388.
8