A decade ago as globalization of the worldÆs markets and economies began to hit its stride, international corporate executives relied upon a branding ômantraö that according to Petromilli (2003) went something like this, ôGo big, go global, or go out of businessö (1). As globalization swung into full swing, executives believed global brands could be created that would be popular in all corners of the world. Such brands anticipated to have uniform characteristics and qualities and deliver uniformly consistent satisfaction among consumers in any market. Virtually across-the-board, such expectations of true ôglobal brandsö were never realized. As branding expert David Aaker declared, ôThere are no such things as global brands, only global brand managementö (Petromilli 2003, 1). Such a statement is valid based on the realization that global branding is more about management brands on a worldwide basis and not about global uniformity or reach.
Analysis from Research International defines three categories or classifications of global brands:
1. Mythic Brands û Brands that are built upon powerful mythic appeal with universal resonance (e.g. Nike, Sony, Coke)
2. Cultural Brands û Brands whose appeal is built upon specific cultural values (e.g. Armani, Burberry)
3.Power Brands û Brands that are distributed globally but often marketed locally (e.g. Ariel, Dove)
Throughout the literature the case is made that initial expectations of global branding were focused on uniformity and reach without realizing global brand is more about brand management. According to Martin Lindstrom (2002), a ôuniform global brand hardly existsö (1). Such a brand would need to possess the identical image, values, and philosophies in all markets of the globe. This would mean a brand that did not require different packaging, promotion, or other variations to succeed in all markets. Such a brand appears to be more of a chimera than ach...