INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ADAPTATION VERSUS STANDARDISATION OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES.

INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ADAPTATION VERSUS STANDARDISATION OF MULTINATIONAL

COMPANIES

This debate commenced as early as 1961 when Elinder considered it with respect to worlwie

advertising, then expanded to the promotional mix and nowadays encompasses the entire MK

mix.

Supporters of standardisation viewed markets as increasingly homogeneous and global in

scope and scale. Key for survival and growth is the multinational’s ability to standatise goods

and services. Consumers needs, wants and requirements don’t vary significantly across

markets or nations.

Argument: world is becoming SIMILAR in terms of ENV.FACTORS and customer requirements;

and IRRESPECTIVE of GEO.LOCATIONS, consumer have the same demands

Supporters of adaptation support market tailoring and adaptation to fit the unique

dimensions of different international markets.

Argument: there are insurmountable differences between countries and even between regions

in the same country. Marketers are subject to a number of macro-environmental factors.

The extreme schools o thought are rejected due to the difficulty in applying them in practice.

Both are needed to use simultaneously. Decisions about international mk tactics depend upon

a number of determinants, grouped into factors and reasons.

Factors are those determinants affecting the bh and its relative importance. Nanda and

Dickson (2007) concentrate on 3 factors to examine S/A behaviour:

- Homogeneity of the customer response to the MKMIX

- Transferability of competitive advantage

- Similarities in the degree o economic freedom

Standarization will be successful when companies face high a,c and b are easily transferable.

Reducing cost & market complexity -> S Customer orientation-> product adaptation

Reasons are those behavioural aspects pulling multinational’s tactical bh towards one or the

other side of the continuum. They don’t bear the same degree of significance in tactical bh

(mkmix design), differencing into “significant” and “peripheral” reasons.

...