Global and local brand stereotypes: formation, content transfer, and impact

Abstract

Purpose The dominant paradigm in international branding research treats perceived brand globalness (PBG) and localness (PBL) as attributes algebraically participating in brand assessment and disregards the perception of brands as humanlike entities actively embedded in consumers’ social environments. Challenging this view and drawing from stereotype theory, the purpose of this paper is to suggest that PBG/PBL trigger the categorization of products under the superordinate mental categories of global/local brands which carry distinct stereotypical content. Such content transfers to every individual product for which category membership is established and shapes brand responses. Design/methodology/approach One experimental study (Study1, n=134) tests the process of global/local brand stereotype formation, identification and content transfer. Subsequently, two consumer surveys test the impact of brand stereotypes on brand approach/avoidance tendencies (Study2, n=328) and consumer–brand relationships (Study3, n=273). Data were analyzed with experimental techniques and structural equation modeling. Findings The findings suggest that upon categorization under the global or local brand class, individual brands are charged with the stereotypical content of the class. Global brands are predominantly stereotyped as competent while local brands are predominantly stereotyped as warm. Localness-induced warmth has uniformly positive effects, whereas globalness-induced competence acts as a double-edged sword which can both help and harm the brand. Originality/value This research contributes by proposing a novel conceptualization of global and local brands as groups of intentional marketplace agents stereotyped along their intentions and abilities, empirically establishing the process through which individual brands are assigned stereotypical judgments and demonstrating how these judgments impact critical brand outcomes and consumer–brand relationships.

Not All Wrongdoers Are Equal in the Public Eye: A Moderated Mediation Model of Country Stereotypes, Condemning Emotions, and Retaliatory Intent in Corporate Crises

“…Social cognition research has extensively used the SCM to qualify perceptions and predict responses toward groups and social categories characterized by, among other things, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and ethnicity (for a review, see Fiske 2018). The SCM has also been increasingly applied to core marketing domains, such as branding (e.g., Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner 2010; Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone 2012), advertising (e.g., Zawisza and Pittard 2015), services (e.g., Kirmani et al 2017), and international marketing (e.g., Chen, Mathur, and Maheswaran 2014; Davvetas and Halkias 2019; Kolbl, Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, and Diamantopoulos 2019).…”

The bond between country and brand stereotypes: insights on the role of brand typicality and utilitarian/hedonic nature in enhancing stereotype content transfer

“…Such consumer beliefs include perceptions of brands' personality (Ivens et al, 2015), beliefs about brands' globalness/localness (e.g. Davvetas and Halkias, 2019), the style of brand interaction (Wu et al, 2017), brands' green positioning strategies (Gong et al, 2020) and even perceptions of organizations' Internet domain name (.com vs. .org;Aaker et al, 2010). Thus, the assumption that the content of brand stereotypes is a simple reflection of the underlying country stereotypeseven under conditions of high typicality (see below)is not warranted.…”

Drivers of brand credibility in consumer evaluation of global brands and domestic brands in an emerging market context

“…Accordingly, it is proposed that in an emerging market, brand credibility may be crucial in determining consumer evaluations of global and domestic brands. This is because brand credibility, which conveys the ability of the brand to deliver its promises, is determined, among other factors, by the brand's country of origin and perceived globalness (Li et al, 2011;Davvetas and Halkias, 2018). Furthermore, the localization strategies followed by global brands have generated consumer confusion regarding their brand globalness and authenticity (Zhou et al, 2010;Balabanis et al, 2019).…”