Lim and Acito

Development of Archetypes of International Marketing StrategyAuthor(s): Lewis K. S. Lim, Frank Acito, Alexander RusetskiSource: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jul., 2006), pp. 499-524Published by: Palgrave Macmillan JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3875167Accessed: 26/08/2010 04:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofInternational Business Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3875167?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal

journal of International Business Studies (2006) 37, 499-524 ? 2006 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 $30.00 www.jibs.net

Development of archetypes of international

marketing strategy

Lewis KS Liml'2, Frank Acito' and Alexander Rusetski"'3

1Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA; 2Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; 3School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence: Lewis Lim, Division of Marketing and International Business, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, S3-B2C-95 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 679798, Singapore. Tel: +65 6790 4095; Fax: +65 6791 3697; E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 25 November 2003 Revised: 14 October 2005 Accepted: 2 November 2005 Online publication date: 25 May 2006

Abstract The extant business literature contains three separate characterizations of international marketing strategy: standardization-adaptation, concentration- dispersion, and integration-independence. These characterizations have, for decades, informed researchers, students, and practitioners alike of the strategic options a multinational firm might have in formulating its cross-border marketing approaches. Although useful, these characterizations have yet to be unified within an integrative classification scheme that considers the gestalt combinatorial patterns along multiple strategy dimensions. Toward creating such a classification scheme, this paper proposes a holistic conceptualization of international marketing strategy grounded in configurational theory, whereby strategies are viewed as multidimensional archetypes. We present evidence of three distinct international marketing strategy archetypes obtained through an exploratory case coding/clustering study. After discussing the characteristics, possible drivers, and contingent performance potentials of these archetypes, we offer directions for future research. Journal of International Business Studies (2006), 37, 499-524. dol: I 0. I 057/palgrave.jibs.8400206

Keywords: international marketing; global marketing; standardization vs adaptation; configurations; case survey methodology; cluster analysis

Introduction

Classification is especially important to the study of organizational strategies; strategies consist of the integration of many dimensions which, in turn, can be configured in seemingly endless combinations. Without a classification scheme, the strategy researcher must deal individually with the many variables of interest.., and must generally assume that all combinations are possible. A strategy classification scheme helps bring order to an incredibly cluttered conceptual landscape. (Hambrick, 1984, 27-28)

For the past four decades, business scholars have sought to characterize and classify the international marketing strategies of multinational firms (Buzzell, 1968; Keegan, 1969; Hovell and Walters, 1972; Ozsomer and Prussia, 2000). Of ultimate concern among these scholars is the performance potential associated with any type of international marketing strategy. A more fundamental goal of classifying these strategies, though, is simply to help researchers, students, and practitioners in the field understand the different strategic options a multinational firm might have in structuring its marketing approaches across country markets.

For the most part, the literature has characterized international marketing strategy from one of three perspectives (Zou and

International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al 500

Cavusgil, 2002). The most common characterization of international marketing strategy is along the standardization-adaptation dimension (e.g., Jain, 1989). From this perspective, international marketing strategies are differentiated according to the degree of standardization (vs adaptation) pursued with respect to one or more of the marketing mix elements (e.g., product, price, promotion). Thus, a standardization strategy is characterized by the application of uniform marketing mix elements (i.e., product design, pricing, distribution, etc.) across different national markets. Conversely, an adaptation strategy is characterized by the tailoring of marketing mix elements to the needs of each market.

A second way of characterizing international marketing strategy stems from the concentration- dispersion perspective (e.g., Roth, 1992). This perspective, rooted in Porter's (1986) analysis of international competition and most recently reflected in Craig and Douglas's (2000) theory of configural advantage, is concerned more with the geographic design of the international marketing organization. The underlying premise of this perspective is that a multinational firm should seek an optimal geographic spread of its value-chain activities such that synergies and comparative advantages across different locations can be maximally exploited. International marketing strategies, then, are differentiated according to the extent to which one or more aspects of the marketing value chain are consolidated or 'concentrated' at particular geographic locations, vs being scattered or 'dispersed' across various country markets.

A third characterization of international marketing strategy is concerned with how competitive marketing activities across country markets are orchestrated. This perspective, referred to here as the integration-independence perspective, is heavily influenced by the competitive 'warfare' description of Hamel and Prahalad (1985). The key question here is whether a multinational firm treats its subsidiary units as standalone profit centers (i.e., independently), or as parts of a grander strategic design (i.e., as integrated units). Accordingly, international marketing strategies should be differentiated according to the degree of consultation and integrated action across markets, and the will- ingness to which a performance outcome in any one market is sacrificed in order to support the competitive campaigns in other markets.

Each of the above three major characterizations captures an important facet of international mar-

keting strategy. Specifically, as the standardization- adaptation characterization is concerned with the degree of harmonization of the marketing mix elements, it captures the market offering aspect of international marketing strategy. In comparison, as the concentration-dispersion characterization deals with the geographical design of the marketing value chain, it captures the structural/organizational aspect of international marketing strategy. Finally, as the integration-independence characterization concerns the planning, implementation, and control elements of competing in a global marketplace, it captures the competitive process aspect of international marketing strategy. Together, these characterizations potentially provide rich descriptions of the ways in which a multinational firm can choose to serve its customers, organize itself, and compete in the international marketplace.

Unfortunately, the potential to richly describe holistic patterns of international marketing strategies does not appear to be completely facilitated by conceptual and methodological advances in the field. Until very recently, scholars have relied on unidimensional schemes to discuss international marketing strategies, and/or have discussed them from a single perspective. For example, Jain's (1989) treatment of the construct 'marketing program standardization' seems to be a general unidimensional one, with complete standardization on one end of the pole and complete adaptation on the other.1 Likewise, Olusoga (1993) defines and measures 'market concentration' mostly in general terms: that is, without distinction among varying degrees of concentration for different value chain activities. Consequently, one would suspect that students and practitioners exposed to this literature might be, at best, equipped to think of international marketing strategies in terms of simple categorical labels such as 'standardized', 'adapted', 'concentrated', etc., without a deep understanding of what they imply at a holistic level.

The recent effort by Zou and Cavusgil (2002) to model the construct of international (global) marketing strategy represents a significant step toward a truly multidimensional approach to this concept. Zou and Cavusgil (2002) propose a second-order factor construct, termed the 'GMS', which overarches eight first-order dimensions of global marketing strategy spanning the three broad characterizations.2 Thus any multinational firm's global marketing strategy, with given degrees of standardization, concentration, and integration, can be captured by a single GMS score. However,

journal of International Business Studies


such a second-order factor construct, while provid- ing an aggregate measure of the degree of 'globalness' of a multinational's marketing strategy, is not modeled to take into account possible interactions among the first-order strategy dimensions. Specifi- cally, by virtue of its linear approach, it is not designed to capture qualitatively distinct patterns of strategy made up of different combinations of strategy elements. This limitation is regrettable because the various strategy elements are likely to interact and combine themselves into multidimensional 'gestalts' (Miller, 1981, 1986; Meyer et al., 1993).

All of the above problems point to the need for a more intricate, yet robust, method for describing and classifying international marketing strategies. To that end, we present a holistic and unified approach to viewing international marketing strategy, an approach that is grounded in the configurational theory of organizations (Miller, 1981, 1986, 1996; Meyer et al., 1993), and which sees strategies as multidimensional archetypes. This approach not only takes into account the different ways in which any given international marketing strategy can be characterized (i.e., in terms of standardization-adaptation, concentration-dispersion, and integration-independence), but also considers the overall configurational pattern of the strategy, in terms of its positions along the different dimensions. Thus our approach offers significant advantages over any single characterization of international marketing strategy, or any single aggregate score of the 'globalness' of marketing strategy (Zou and Cavusgil, 2002).

To support our conceptualization, we report a case coding/clustering study in which we utilized a taxonomic procedure for uncovering several distinct archetypes of international marketing strategy. Although the results cannot be taken as conclusive because of the exploratory nature of our analysis, the presence of archetypes within a limited sample provides preliminary evidence for the efficacy and theoretic value of the configurational approach.

Our proposed approach makes three fundamental contributions to the international marketing literature. First, our notion of strategy archetypes arguably represents the first truly multidimensional way of describing and classifying international marketing strategies. By differentiating strategies in terms of their relative proximities in multidimensional space, our approach provides a novel integrative perspective on the various strategic

marketing options that can be or have been pursued by multinational firms, and allows a more meaningful comparative evaluation of international marketing strategies. Second, beyond identi- fying strategy archetypes per se, our approach provides a starting point for inquiring into their evolution as well as for a contingent analysis of their performance potential. By virtue of the multidimensionality in their configurational patterns, the archetypes contain rich information about the marketing behaviors of multinational firms and about factors that might contribute to their effectiveness. This presents a valuable oppor- tunity to consolidate our knowledge of international marketing and international strategy. Third, our approach has pedagogic value. By demonstrat- ing the presence of archetypes of international marketing strategies and discussing their contingent performance potential, we bring forth an important set of ideas and a useful framework for future teaching of international marketing. Stu- dents and practitioners could then better appreciate the multifaceted nature of international marketing without having to rely on unidimensional labels or dichotomies.

The next section of this paper reviews the field's past efforts in characterizing and classifying international marketing strategy, and reiterates the need for a more robust approach to delineating strategies. We then introduce our proposed archetype approach and highlight its foundations in configurational theory. Next, we illustrate the utility of our approach by examining data from our case coding study for the presence of archetypes. Based on the findings, we explore the likely drivers of archetypes and potential archetype performance variations.

The study of international marketing strategy: toward a unified multidimensional characterization The marketing literature has dealt with international advertising issues since at least the early 1960s (e.g., Elinder, 1961; Roostal, 1963; Fatt, 1964), but it was Buzzell (1968) who offered the first systematic discussion of standardization as a type of international marketing strategy. A standardization strategy was defined as the harmonization of the various marketing mix elements (e.g., product design, pricing, distribution, etc.) across different country markets. Conversely, a localiza- tion or adaptation strategy would be the adoption of a unique marketing mix in each market. Buzzell

Journal of International Business Studies

; International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al 502

(1968) provided several reasons for favoring a standardization policy, including cost savings, consistency in customer dealings, and the exploitation of a universal appeal, and urged multinational executives to consider moving away from the then-prevalent adaptation policy.

Following Buzzell (1968), the international marketing literature continued to debate the merits of a standardization strategy. Perhaps the most notable proponent of standardization was Levitt (1983), who argued that diminishing cultural differences across countries due to technological advance- ments necessitate a global (standardized) strategy that best captures worldwide economies of scale. Other supporters of this view included Rutenberg (1982), Henzler and Rall (1986), Jain (1989), and Zou et al. (1997), who provided various arguments revolving around scale advantage and consistency in marketing planning and actions. On the other side of the debate were scholars such as Boddewyn et al. (1986), Kotler (1986), Douglas and Wind (1987), Ohmae (1989), and Sheth (1986), who variously pointed out the barriers to worldwide marketing standardization, including governmen- tal and trade restrictions, inter-country differences in marketing infrastructure, and local management resistance.

The debate between standardization and adaptation remained largely unresolved through the 1990s (see Theodosiou and Leonidou, 2003). More significantly, perhaps because of the intensity and prominence of the debate, the literature in the 1980s and 1990s began to treat standardization and adaptation as fixed alternative options in international marketing strategy. The titles of several articles published during this period (e.g., Samiee and Roth, 1992; Szymanski et al., 1993; Solberg, 2000) suggested that the academic community had come to accept the concept of international marketing strategy itself as falling along a single continuum of standardization vs adaptation. More- over, several scholars had begun using unidimensional scales to measure variations of international marketing strategies. For example, in a follow-up empirical study to Jain (1989), Samiee and Roth (1992) used a single index to measure global marketing standardization.

Yet a careful reading of the literature reveals that the state of knowledge was also evolving toward a multidimensional view of international marketing strategy. As early as 1969, Keegan (1969) proposed looking at the issue of standardization vs adaptation from both the product and promotion points

of view. He described four qualitatively different strategies, which could arise from crossing the

product-standardization-versus-adaptation dimension with the promotion-standardization-versus- adaptation dimension. In addition to these four types of strategy, Hovell and Walters (1972) suggested including variations in terms of the other marketing mix elements, such as distribution and

personal selling approaches. In the empirical realm, Sorenson and Wiechmann (1975) found that multinational firms vary their marketing approaches across different country markets along as many as 12 dimensions. Finally, Quelch and Hoff (1986) discussed partial vs full standardization as well as

partial vs full adaptation along more than 20 dimensions of business functions, products, marketing mix elements, and countries.

Notwithstanding the momentum toward a multidimensional approach to describing and capturing international marketing strategies, the preponder- ance of studies until at least the mid-1980s had really focused only on the market offering aspect (i.e., the marketing mix) of international marketing strategy. However, two streams of research were to emerge to give rise to two additional strategy characterizations - description schemes based on the structural/organizational and on the competitive process aspects of international marketing.

As identified by Zou and Cavusgil (2002), the concentration-dispersion characterization of international marketing strategy can be traced to Porter's (1986) 'design' framework. The focus of analysis is on the structuring of value-chain activities (e.g., R&D/product development, after- sale service, logistics and distribution) across international locations. The measurement scale implied by this perspective is in terms of geographic 'concentration' vs 'dispersion' of each of the value-chain functions (Roth et al., 1991; Roth, 1992). Porter (1986) argued that multinational firms should seek an optimal value-chain 'configuration' such that scale and national comparative advantages are exploited, while balancing responsiveness to local needs. More specific to the marketing area, Craig and Douglas (2000) expli- cated how the spatial configuration of marketing value-chain activities, made up of differential concentration-dispersion levels, could influence the tightness of the operational interlinkages across markets and the development of border-spanning learning and market-sensing capabilities. These outcomes in turn determine the 'configural' advantage of the firm.



The other emerging characterization, the integration-independence characterization, is grounded in the competitive 'warfare' description of Hamel and Prahalad (1985). This perspective is concerned with the extent to which a multinational firm orchestrates its competitive moves on an international basis and leverages its competitive position in one market to achieve an advantage in other markets (e.g., by cross-subsidizing its competitive campaigns across different countries). In other words, the key issue here is whether a multinational firm treats its subsidiaries as independent profit centers or as an integrated group of business units. Hamel and Prahalad (1985) illustrate the latter behavior with an example about Goodyear retaliat- ing against Michelin's incursion into the US tire market by launching an attack in Michelin's home base, Europe, thereby tying up Michelin's resources and restraining its ability to compete. Such actions require close coordination among different country offices and compromises in country-level profitability. This perspective therefore implies that international marketing strategy should be measured in terms of the degree of integration in competitive moves and decision-making, the integration of competitive response, and cross-unit communication and mutual consultation (Hout et al., 1982; Yip, 1989).

Noting the diverse (three-fold) conceptualiza- tions of international marketing strategy, Zou and Cavusgil (2002) made the first important attempt at the turn of the century to unify the concept and develop a measure that reflects its multidimensional nature. They conceived of a second-order factor, labeled the 'GMS' (acronym for global marketing strategy), that incorporated eight first- order strategy sub-dimensions spanning standardization-adaptation, concentration-dispersion, and integration-independence (one of the dimensions, standardized price, was dropped during their empirical analysis). With the GMS construct, they made it possible to capture the overall 'globalness' of a firm's international marketing strategy using a single score. The limitation of the GMS model, however, is that it is not able to detect the dominant combinatorial patterns in the data, patterns that would reveal the true multidimensional character of international marketing strategies. Furthermore, to use the GMS score alone to account for variations in multinational firm performance may prove causally ambiguous, as several qualitatively distinct patterns of strategy could technically share the same GMS score. For example,

Table 1 shows two somewhat distinct patterns of international marketing strategy, represented by variations along the first-order dimensions of the GMS model. Using the factor loadings reported in Zou and Cavusgil (2002) as weights, the overall GMS scores computed for the two strategies turn out to be exactly equal.

In summary, although the literature has begun to acknowledge the need to integrate and unify the various characterizations of international marketing strategy in order to derive a rich description and classification scheme, existing conceptual and methodological advances have yet to completely facilitate this endeavor. In particular, progress has yet to be made far beyond the use of unidimensional labels such as 'standardized', 'adapted', and 'concentrated', or the use of aggregate scores of globalness, to describe international marketing strategies. The field is still in need of a more sophisticated and robust method for delineating patterns and types of strategy.

Strategy archetypes: a configurational approach The configurational theory of organizations (Miller, 1981, 1986; Meyer et al., 1993) supplies the primary basis for conceptualizing our proposed holistic approach to viewing international marketing strategy. Configurational theory holds that organizational effectiveness arises out of superior combinations of strategic and structural characteristics (Miller and Mintzberg, 1983; Doty et al., 1993; Ketchen et al., 1997). In keeping with the configurational perspective, our approach is grounded in the premise that any concept of strategy is inher- ently multidimensional, and that various elements of strategy can interact or combine differently in multidimensional space. As Miller (1986, 235-236) aptly puts it in his well-noted piece:

The elements of strategy, structure, and environment often coalesce or configure into a manageable number of common, predictively useful types that describe a large proportion of high-performing organizations. The configurations (or 'gestalts', or 'archetypes', or 'generic types') are said to be predictively useful in that they are composed of tight constellations of mutually supportive elements.

Applied to the present context, it is the different 'constellations', or configurations, of strategy elements that make up a 'universe' of international marketing strategies. Thus, to richly describe international marketing strategies, one must look beyond single strategy dimensions for modal combinatorial patterns across multiple dimensions.



Table 1 Example of two combinations of strategy ratings sharing the same GMS score

Strategy dimension Firm la Firm 2a

GMSI: product standardization 3.86 -0.35 GMS2: promotion standardization 2.10 2.14 GMS3: standardized channel design 0.29 1.64 GMS4: concentration of marketing activities 0.78 -0.64 GMS5: coordination of marketing activities 1.65 5.32 GMS6: global market participation 2.32 1.86 GMS7: integration of competitive moves 1.29 2.63 Total GMS score 6.82 6.82

aFactor scores for strategy dimensions and for the GMS were obtained by multiplying standardized factor loadings reported in Zou and Cavusgil (2002) by corresponding standardized item scores from their original data set and summing up resulting products.

6

5

4

-.- Firm 2

2 GMS- GS -uG-Firm 2

0

-1GMS1 GMS2 GMS3 GMS4 GMS5 GMS6 GMS7 GMS1 GMS2 GMS3 GMS4 GMS5 GMS6 GMS7

When patterns are distinctive and exemplary, they can be called the archetypes of strategy. When discovered, such archetypes may be represented using graphical snake-like line profiles that chart different degrees of standardization, concentration, and integration among themselves. However, unlike the line profiles used by Wind (1986) and Douglas and Wind (1987) to illustrate variations of international marketing strategy, the archetypes conceived here are not arbitrary line drawings or stylized prototypes. There is an implied assertion that archetypes are theoretically meaningful strategic forms that are at least viable and potentially high-performing, if not approaching the 'ideal' types assumed by Doty et al. (1993) in their study of configurations.

Miller (1981, 1986) offers three theoretical reasons for believing that only a few configurational combinations would dominate any given strategy domain. First, from a population ecology perspective (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1977), the environment tends to select out unviable, unsustainable, or otherwise uncompetitive strategies, thereby

leaving a limited number of superior strategic options. Second, borrowing from 'gestalt' principles (e.g., Kelly, 1955), organizations themselves tend to be drawn toward configurations of strategy elements that are internally harmonious and mutually reinforcing. Presumably, this could occur either as a result of the organization's own strategic choice (Child, 1972) or through industry mimetic actions and normative pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), Third, as suggested by studies of organizational evolution (e.g., Miller and Friesen, 1984), organizational change often occurs either in small incremental steps or in 'quantum leaps', implying that many hybrid forms are often avoided or left unexplored. Consequently, even as the study of strategy moves onto a more complex, multidimensional plane, researchers need to deal with only a limited number of strategy configurations out of numerous technically possible combinations.

Implementing the configurational approach to the study of international marketing strategy would involve three major steps. First, the specific dimensions that collectively define the concept of



international marketing strategy should be identified. This is in line with the recommendation of Ketchen et al. (1993), who find that configurations derived from theory-based dimensions have greater predictive validity. As the literature accepts three treatments of strategy - standardization-adaptation (capturing the market offering aspect), concentration-dispersion (capturing the structural/organizational aspect), and integration-independence (capturing the competitive process aspect) - these three broad groups of dimensions should be used concurrently to identify international marketing strategy archetypes. Second, a procedure for selecting a suitable sample of international marketing strategies, to objectively quantify these strategies in terms of the three sets of dimensions, and to statistically detect and delineate combinatorial patterns within the sample, should be performed. To demonstrate this procedure, we describe below a structured case coding/clustering methodology used for uncovering strategy archetypes. Third, the derived archetypes should be meaningfully interpreted and analyzed for possible drivers and contingent performance factors. To that end, we examine the background characteristics of our uncovered archetypes and look to the broader international business literature to make predic- tions about their relative performance.

It should be noted that the approach outlined above is closer to the taxonomic approach espoused by McKelvey (1975) and Hambrick (1984), and used by Miller and Friesen (1977, 1978, 1980), Woo and Cooper (1981), and Hambrick and Schecter (1983) to empirically uncover configurational archetypes of organizational design or strategy. A taxonomic approach is appropriate when extant theory does not yet permit an a priori identification of superior strategy configurations (Meyer et al., 1993). How- ever, in more mature domains, where typologies of effective configurations have already been developed (e.g., the typology of Miles and Snow, 1978), researchers have been able to employ a typological or 'ideal profile' approach to test hypotheses about certain configurational ideal-types (e.g., Gresov, 1989; Doty et al., 1993; Vorhies and Morgan, 2003). Those hypotheses are concerned mostly with the effect of 'fit' among elements of strategy (measured in terms of deviation from ideal profiles) on firm performance. Related to fit is the issue of equifinality among configurations: that is, whether different configurations achieving varying forms of fit can be equally effective (Gresov and Drazin, 1997). In this paper, we primarily pursue a

taxonomic approach to develop international marketing strategy archetypes. Our subsequent exploration of contingent performance issues will, however, leave scope for the future use of the typological approach.

Most importantly, our proposed approach serves to address current limitations in the characterization of international marketing strategy. First, our approach represents a significant advancement from the traditional unidimensional way of classifying strategies based on any of the standardization-adaptation, concentration-dispersion, or integration-independence perspectives alone. The archetypes conceived here are multidimensional in nature, and they encompass strategy elements from all three perspectives. Second, our approach differs from Zou and Cavusgil's (2002) second-order factor model in that it permits the identification of gestalt patterns resulting from different combinations of strategy dimensions, as opposed to a single aggregate measure of strategy 'globalness'. Overall, our approach facilitates a more profound understanding of international marketing strategy in terms of holistic combinatorial patterns.

Evidence of archetypes: an exploratory case coding/clustering study To demonstrate the utility of our proposed configurational approach, we undertook an exploratory case coding/clustering study, which, we believe, was the first of its kind in international marketing. Our study consisted of two phases. Phase I involved a 'case survey' methodology (Larsson, 1993), also known as the 'structured case content analysis' method (Jauch et al., 1980), to quantify the international marketing strategies of firms featured in a sample of published cases. We believe that published cases are a useful source of data for our research. Even though these cases are written mostly for teaching purposes, they contain factual and detailed information about the practices and strategic designs of actual firms. Such information, having been gathered through tedious fieldwork, is extremely rich and not easily extracted through quantitative surveys. Moreover, case writers nor- mally rely on multiple key informants and archival records to construct the cases (Jauch et al., 1980). Much of the information contained in the cases would have been cross-validated to the extent possible (for prescriptions of case-writing practices, see Corey, 1998; Roberts, 2001). Compared with using other forms of secondary data, such as annual reports, the use of cases also affords the advantage


SInternational marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al 506

of enabling measures of process variables, that is, variables dealing with the processes of strategy formulation and implementation. Such processes often are not publicly observable but are central to at least one dimension of international marketing strategy (the integration-independence dimension). Finally, with cases, unlike with survey respondents, the data source (i.e., the case documents themselves) resides permanently in our premises. It is always possible to return to the source for clarification of item ratings and/or for exploration of additional items.

To overcome the problem of comparability across cases due to different units of analysis and different case types, we select only cases that describe, in a reasonably detailed manner, the actual international marketing strategies of firms at the business unit level at any given point in time. More precisely, each case should:

(1) be concerned with the strategic marketing issues of a firm operating in an international environment;

(2) relate to an identifiable business unit for which a single, distinct marketing strategy is formulated and executed;

(3) report the key aspects of the firm's overall international marketing strategy (as opposed to being focused on a particular international marketing event or decision, or a particular country strategy); and

(4) describe an actual, rather than a planned, international marketing strategy that has been in implementation for a reasonable period of time.

In accordance with these principles, we developed a case qualification checklist (see Appendix A) and stringently applied the criteria to our selection of cases. Furthermore, for each case selected for coding, we clearly specified the level of analysis at which the coder should interpret the international marketing strategy of the featured firm (e.g., company, product division, or brand level corresponding to a strategic business unit), as well as the geographic scope of the firm's international marketing strategy (e.g., worldwide or regional).

Our case selection process thus generated a sample of exemplars of international marketing strategies that existed at some point in time. To the extent that companies chosen to be featured in published cases are usually notable industry players with a certain level of financial stability and solvency, it can be argued that they are at least

moderately successful adapters in population ecology terms (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Conse- quently, taxonomic archetypes found among these companies would represent viable strategic forms. (This does not imply, however, that any of these archetypes is maximally effective. Archetype performance potential has to be examined in relation to contingent fit, a subject we shall address later in this paper.)

The process of translating the qualitative descriptions in the case into quantitative measures was facilitated by a detailed coding scheme. Appendix B shows the coding scheme that was used for measuring the international marketing strategies featured in our sample of cases. The coding scheme contained 16 scale items: seven measuring the standardization-adaptation dimensions, five measuring the concentration-dispersion dimensions, and four measuring the integration-independence dimensions of the featured firm's international marketing strategy. Each scale item was an 11-point bipolar scale with extreme descriptors at both ends.3 To ensure that the coders fully understood the meanings of the coding dimensions, we also provided the coders with detailed definition cards for all of the coding scheme scale items and an instruction booklet that they could refer to as they undertook the coding task. Besides rating the scale items, a coder attending to a given case was required to reference particular sections of the case that contained information supporting his/her ratings. In undertaking the assignment of numer- ical values along various dimensions based on case narratives, the coder effectively replaced the role of the key informant (as in a typical survey) on behalf of the featured firm.

We recruited and trained two successive groups of student assistants to serve as coders in our project. All coders were provided with a detailed instruction sheet, thoroughly briefed on the project requirements, and taken through several practice examples of item-coding procedures before being put on an independent trial. After successfully completing the trial and being debriefed on particular procedural issues and techniques, the coders began a semester- long coding job. Each week, the coders were assigned specific cases taken from our case pool. Every case was coded by two coders, who subse- quently met to compare their item ratings and resolve any discrepancies. We defined a discrepancy as a difference of more than two points on an 11-point scale between the two coders' ratings. Whenever there was a discrepancy, the coders



concerned had to discuss their respective reasons for the rating given, come to an agreement regarding the source of the difference (which was usually due to differences in the interpretation of the text), and then voluntarily adjust their ratings to within a two-point difference. Only in rare instances were the coders unable to successfully resolve a discrepant item. In those rare instances, we stepped in and arbitrated the differences by recoding the items ourselves.

The above steps executed over an 8-month period resulted in a coded case sample of about 80 cases. Many cases inevitably contained some items that could not be coded because of incomplete information in the case text. To reduce the number of missing values in our data set, we removed cases that did not have at least 10 out of the 16 items coded. The resultant sample came to 51 cases. With this final sample, we executed Phase II of our taxonomic procedure.

Phase II of our procedure involved the prepara- tion and analysis of our data set. To prepare our data set for analysis, we first removed five items for which ratings were not given in more than 30% of the cases. For the remaining 11 items, we then imputed all missing values with their respective item means. We believed these two steps collectively helped us maintain the integrity of our data (by focusing only on commonly rated items with fewer missing values) while preserving our sample size (by not having to perform listwise or pairwise deletion).4

To statistically uncover archetypes of international marketing strategy from our data set, we utilized cluster analysis because of the technique's 'unparalleled ability to classify a large number of observations along multiple variables' (Ketchen and Shook, 1996, 453). Following Punj and Stew- art's (1983) recommendation, we applied a two- stage procedure to cluster-analyze all 51 cases in the data set along the 11 remaining dimensions. In the first stage, the sample was subjected to hierarchical clustering via Ward's method, which generally produces clusters whose centroids differ maximally based on minimum within-cluster variance. At this

point, we relied on multiple criteria as suggested by Milligan and Cooper (1985) and Ketchen and Shook (1996) to determine the appropriate number of clusters in our data set. Based on an inspection of the dendrogram (see Figure 1) and an evaluation of the pseudo-F, the cubic clustering criterion (CCC), and the agglomeration distance-change statistics (see Table 2), either a two- or a three-cluster

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

CASE 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +---------+---------+---------+------------ -+

Daewoo 4

Singer 17

P&G Europe 7

R&A Bailey 37

Loctite 25

Schering AG 49

DHL 9

Hewlett Packard 34

Nando's 38

L'Oreal Elseve Brand 42

PolyGram Classics 10

Haier 40

Citibank 32

Mary Kay 35

Toyota 39

Bausch & Lomb 1

Gallo Rice 2

Ben & Jerry's 31

Utex 47

Fike 33

Selkirk 44

Microsoft 26

Montgras 28

BRL Hardy 16

AXA 21

Euro RSCG 46

Nestle 13

ICI Paint 20

Ikea 8

Dendrite 18

Kikkoman 30

Sargan 48

Tesco 3

Carrefour 5

Sony Europa 6

Godiva Europe 51

Henkel 23

Samsung 43

PSA Peugeot Citroen 50

Zara 14

Jurassic Park 24

Supermecados Disco 15

Dunhill Holdings 36

Barco 22

Murphy Brown 12

WebEx 19

Singapore Airlines 29

Rochas 45

Benetton 11

Stella Artois 27

Wal-Mart 41

Figure 1 Dendrogram from hierarchical clustering procedure via Ward's method.

solution seemed acceptable. For example, from the dendrogram, we noted three relatively dense branches, indicating the presence of three 'natural' clusters (Ketchen and Shook, 1996). On the other hand, the statistics favored a two-cluster solution, with peak values of the pseudo-F, the CCC, and the agglomeration distance-change found at two (followed by three) clusters. In deciding between a two- and a three-cluster solution, we therefore considered the interpretability and meaningfulness of each solution (Hair et al., 1998). A two-cluster solution gave very little information, distinguish- ing clusters as merely high or low along all dimensions. Such a pattern also implied a high


SInternational marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al 508

Table 2 Pseudo-F, cubic clustering criterion (CCC), and agglomeration distance-change statistics for possible cluster solutions

Statistic Number of clusters

2 3 4 5

Pseudo-F 14.49 10.33 8.67 8.11 CCC 5.003 3.061 2.066 1.953

Agglomeration 644.48 280.00 201.18 168.92

distance-changea

aEach column refers to the number of clusters prior to the change. Explanatory notes on the statistics: The pseudo-F statistic is intended to capture the 'tightness' of clusters, and is in essence a ratio of the mean sum of squares between groups to the mean sum of squares within group (Lattin et al., 2003: 291). The value reported is obtained from SAS PROC FASTCLUS and is calculated as

Pseudo-F =T - P/(G - 1) PcG/(n- G)

where G is the number of clusters, T is the total sum of squares, and PG is the within-group sum of squares. Larger numbers of the pseudo-F usually indicate a better clustering solution. The Cubic Clustering Criterion (CCC) was developed by SAS (Sarle, 1983) as a comparative measure of the deviation of the clusters from the distribution expected if data points were obtained from a uniform distribution. The criterion is calculated as

CCC =In[1 - E(R2)]xK

where E(R ) is the expected RL, RL is the observed RL, and K is the variance-stabilizing transformation (see Sarle, 1983). Larger positive values of the CCC indicate a better solution, as it shows a larger difference from a uniform (no clusters) distribution. However, the CCC may be incorrect if clustering variables are highly correlated. The agglomeration distance refers to the distance between clusters being merged in each step. A larger distance indicates highly dissimilar clusters being joined, suggesting that not joining them will preserve the natural structure of the data. As distance-always grows, it is convenient to compare the incremental distance-changes, with a large change indicating that an appropriate solution has been found at the number of clusters prior to the change (Ketchen and Shook, 1996: 446).

correlation among all clustering variables, which we knew was not true. In contrast, a three-cluster solution appeared to offer richer insights into the possible ways various dimensions of international marketing strategy could be combined, thereby illuminating subtler configurational patterns.5 For these reasons, we chose a three-cluster solution. Next, in the second stage of the clustering procedure, the centroid values from the hierarchical clusters were used as seeds in an iterative K-means algorithm to recluster the observations into exactly three clusters. This was to ensure reliable cluster groupings (Punj and Stewart, 1983; Ketchen and Shook, 1996). The final group assignments and centroid values are shown in Table 3.

The three clusters now represent three international marketing strategy archetypes. To interpret the clusters, we rely on plots of the centroid values

(see Figure 2). We complement our analysis of these plots with what we call 'pseudo-t' statistics (see also Table 3), each calculated as the absolute value of the ratio of the difference between each pair of centroid values along each dimension to the estimated standard error of this difference (cf. Lattin et al., 2003). Larger values of the pseudo-t indicate larger differences in centroid values with tighter distribu- tions.6

Archetype A This archetype follows a comparatively more standardized market offering policy. Companies grouped under this archetype display, on average, higher degrees of standardization in product design, advertising theme, and pricing as compared with the other archetypes (t> 2.584). On the dimensions of brand name and sales promotion tactics, this archetype is also arguably more standardized than at least one other archetype (t, 3.346). Only on the dimension of channel design is this archetype not evidently the most standardized (average item rating: 5.8). However, this archetype adopts a more concentrated marketing value chain design, in terms of its product design and development (t> 2.349) and advertising and promotional planning functions (t> 3.716). Its logistics and distribution planning function is also more concentrated than that of at least one other archetype (t=4.391). Moreover, this archetype appears to be more integrated in its competitive process in terms of competitive decision-making (t~ 4.655). On the dimension of communication and mutual consultation across country units, this archetype is evidently more integrated than one other archetype (t=3.294). In view of its greater degree of standardization, concentration, and integration, we label this archetype the Global Market- ers. The case that is most representative of this archetype, based on the least sum of squared deviations from the cluster centroid, is Godiva Europe (Lambin, 2004), a producer of premium chocolates. At the time of writing, Godiva's international marketing strategy typified what many scholars would regard as a global or near-global strategy. The following quotes from the case illustrate the relatively more standardized market offering policy, especially in the areas of product design and advertising theme (average item ratings of 8.5 and 8.0, respectively):

The Godiva facility in Belgium produces chocolates for the entire world, with the exception of the United States. Products exported from Belgium are identical for all



Different Same brand name p brand name

in each market .

in each market

Product . Same product designed for * in each each market I market

Localizedad Same advertising theme for ... ....in each

each market market

Different mix of Same sales promotion tools promotion tools

in each market in each market

Channel structure Same channel unique in structure in each market each market

Prices set 1

Same price according to situation position

in each market in each market

Each country . Product design responsible for product and development

design and development " / in a single location

Each country Distribution and responsible for logistics logistics consolidated

and distribution \ at a single location

Each country \ Advertising and promotion responsible for

advertising. . . . . planning consolidated

and promotion I at a single location

Each country I Marketing planning formulates tightly coordinated

own marketing plan .. I across all markets

Country managers Country managers do not share

...

. frequently share information [ information

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Infrastructure minimalists Tactical Coordinators ..........

Global Marketers

Figure 2 Centroid values of three archetypes derived from case coding/clustering procedure.

countries, but sales by item are different... Today, the US factory still produces a slightly different and more limited assortment of chocolate pralines. These differences will progressively vanish, and the trend is toward similar production (p. 332). Today, Godiva does not need to make itself known on the international level: Its brand name is already globally recognized. Its current concern, in line with the policy that has been pursued for the past several months, is to create a common advertising message for the entire world (p. 336).

Similarly, the quotes below illustrate the relative high geographical concentration of Godiva's marketing value chain, notably the product design/ development and the distribution/logistics planning functions (average items ratings of 8.5 and 7.5, respectively):

The Belgian consumer is the reference point: 'Shouldn't a product that has passed the test of the Belgian consumer, a fine connoisseur of chocolate and a demanding customer, be assured of success throughout the world?' (p. 332). Over the course of the past year van der Veken [President of Godiva Europe, based in Brussels] had completely restruc- tured the company. He started by firing the marketing and sales staff and then changed the retail distribution network by removing Godiva's representation from numerous stores. He then completely rethought the decoration and design of the remaining stores, and established precise rules of organization and functioning applicable to those stores (p. 336).

Events described in the case also suggest a tight worldwide (triadic) coordination in Godiva's marketing planning and competitive decision-making process (average item rating: 8.0).


Table 3 Cluster assignments and centroid values

Case Publisher/source Case number Industry Strategy level Geographic Time period scope

Cluster 1: archetype A Barco HBS 9-591-133 Professional equipment Projection Systems Division Worldwide Late 1980s Benetton HBS 9-396-177 Fashion apparel Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Daewoo HBS 9-598-065 Diversified Automobile business Worldwide Late 1990s Dunhill Holdings Cranfield Univ. 588-002-1 Fashion and tobacco Corporation Worldwide Late 1980s Godiva Europe Kerin and Peterson (2004) - Chocolates Corporation Worldwide Late 1980s Henkel HBS 9-585-185 Diversified Adhesives Group Worldwide Early 1980s Loctite HBS 9-594-021 Adhesives and sealants Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s

Murphy Brewery UCC 597-029-1 Breweries Murphy brands Worldwide Late 1990s Jurassic Park HBS 9-596-014 Entertainment Licensing business Worldwide Early 1990s P&G Europe HBS 300-085-1 Consumer packaged Ariel Ultra brand Europe Late 1980s

goods PSA Peugeot Citroen Jain (2001) 20 Automobiles Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Rochas Cardiff Business School 594-006-1 Perfumes Rochas brand Worldwide Late 1980s

Samsung ICFAI 503-055-1 Electronics Consumer electronics Worldwide Early 2000s

Singapore Airlines HBS 9-504-025 Airlines Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s

Singer HBS 9-804-001 Sewing machines Corporation Worldwide Early 1910s Sony Europa IMD IMD-5-0488 Electronics Consumer electronics Europe Early 1990s Stella Artois Ivey 9BOOA019 Breweries Stella Artois brand Worldwide Late 1990s

Supermercados Disco HBS 9-599-127 Grocery retailing Disco supermarket chain Latin America Late 1990s Utex MI 396-160-1 Industrial sealing devices Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Wal-Mart ICFAI 304-1 38-1 General retailing Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s WebEx Stanford SM-121A Web-based communications Web conferencing products Worldwide Early 2000s Zara HBS 9-503-050 Fashion apparel Apparel stores Worldwide Early 2000s

Cluster 2: archetype B Bausch & Lomb HBS 9-594-056 Eye care/lenses Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Ben & Jerry's Ivey 9A99A037 Ice cream Corporation Worldwide Late 1990s Citibank HBS/Wharton 9-395-142 Banking Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Dendrite HBS 9-594-048 Sales automation systems Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s DHL HBS 9-593-011 Express delivery Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Fike Jain (2001) 19 Industrial control devices Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s Gallo Rice HBS 9-593-018 Rice production and Gallo brand Worldwide Early 1990s

marketing Haier ICFAI 304-264-1 Electric appliances Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s Hewlett-Packard HBS 9-501-053 Computers Home Products Division Europe Late 1980s Ikea ICFAI 303-112-1 Furniture retailing Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s L'Oreal CEMS 501-011-1 Beauty products Elseve brand Europe Late 1990s

501-012-1 Mary Kay HBS 9-594-023 Beauty products Corporation Asia Early 1990s Nando's WBS WBS-1999-4 Restaurants Corporation Worldwide Late 1990s

Table 3 Continued

Case Publisher/source Case number Industry Strategy level Geographic Time period scope

R&A Bailey UCD 501-044-1 Wines and spirits Bailey's brand Worldwide Late 1990s Schering AG BSE 303-221-1 Specialty pharmaceuticals Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s Selkirk Ivey 9A99M003 Building materials Bricks business Asia Late 1990s

Cluster 3: archetype C AXA HBS 9-793-094 Insurance Corporation Worldwide Early 1990s BRL Hardy HBS 9-300-018 Wines and spirits Corporation Worldwide Late 1990s Carrefour INSEAD 195-001-1 and 195-002-1 General retailing Corporation Asia Early 1990s Euro RSCG IMD IMD-5-0573 Marketing communications Advertising business Worldwide Late 1990s ICI Paints IMD GM-557 Paints Corporation Worldwide Late 1980s Kikkoman HBS 9-504-067 Foods manufacturing Soy Sauce business Worldwide Early 2000s Microsoft HBS 9-588-028 Computer software Microsoft Works program Worldwide Late 1980s Montgras HBS 9-503-044 Wines and spirits Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s Nestl HBS 9-585-013 Foods manufacturing Culinary products Worldwide Early 1980s Polygram Classics HBS 9-598-074 Recorded music Corporation Worldwide Mid 1990s Sargan plc Cardiff Business School 594-047-1 Health care products Consumer brands division Worldwide Early 1990s Tesco HBS 9-503-036 Retailing Tesco chain Worldwide Early 2000s Toyota ICFAI 304-100-1 Automobiles Corporation Worldwide Early 2000s

Dimension Cluster 1 (archetype A) Cluster 2 (Archetype B) Cluster 3 (Archetype C) 'Pseudo-t' statistics for describing differences among n=22 n= 16 n= 13 centroid values

Centroid Std dev Centroid Std dev Centroid Std dev A vs B A vs C B vs C

Brand name standardization (ST_BRAND) 8.59 1.56 8.34 1.83 6.08 2.49 0.407 3.761 3.166 Product design standardization (ST_DESIGN)7.48 2.11 4.25 3.11 3.85 3.00 3.656 3.864 0.402 Advertising theme standardization 6.67 1.87 3.80 1.71 4.65 1.79 4.856 3.202 1.273 (ST_ADTHEME) Sales promotion tactics standardization 5.96 2.00 3.97 1.65 5.68 1.64 3.346 0.443 2.529 (ST_PROMO) Channel design standardization 5.79 1.90 6.15 1.79 2.92 1.32 0.627 4.715 4.969 (ST_CHANNEL) Pricing standardization (ST_PRICING) 6.45 2.1 3 4.21 2.41 4.28 2.80 2.843 2.584 0.081 Product design and development 8.23 1.22 6.78 2.34 5.27 2.15 2.349 4.512 2.160 concentration (CONC_PDM) Logistics and distribution planning 6.51 2.23 5.45 2.31 3.18 1.87 1.496 4.391 2.798 concentration (CONC_LOGDIST) Advertising and promotional planning 7.79 2.27 4.43 2.28 4.80 2.37 4.449 3.716 0.434 concentration (CONC A&P) Competitive decision-making integration 7.79 1.60 4.24 1.70 5.00 1.91 6.301 4.655 1.1 83 (INT_DECISION)

"? International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al 512

Archetype B In contrast to the Global Marketers, this archetype pursues a rather mixed standardization policy for its market offering. While its brand name and channel design elements are arguably more standardized (similar to the Global Marketers), its advertising theme and sales promotion tactics are relatively more localized as compared with at least one other archetype (t> 2.529). Along with Arche- type C below, its product design and pricing dimensions are also more localized than those of the Global Marketers (t> 2.843). Similarly, its advertising and promotional planning function is more geographically dispersed as compared with the Global Marketers (t=4.449). Nonetheless, its product design/development and distribution/ logistics planning functions are moderately concentrated (average item ratings of 6.8 and 5.5, respectively, in between the other two archetypes). Compared with at least one other archetype, this archetype is also apparently less integrated in its competitive decision-making and communication and mutual consultation (t,>3.143). In view of its selective approach of standardizing only the brand name and channel design with corresponding concentration of product design/development and distribution/logistics functions, we label this archetype the Infrastructural Minimalists. Companies classified under this archetype appear to emphasize the provision of global infrastructure to their local units with otherwise minimal intervention in the respective local operations and decisions. A case that is representative of this archetype, again based on the least sum of squared deviations from the cluster centroid, is Gallo Rice (Laidler, 1998), featuring the Italian company F&P Gruppo, marketer of the Gallo brand of rice. According to the case, the Gallo brand name was used by the company across all country markets, resulting in a brand name standardization average rating of 9.0:

The Gallo brand name and Gallo rooster logo were used consistently across geographic markets... (p. 2).

However, the exact line of rice sold differed from country to country (average product design standardization rating: 3.0). Similarly, the communication strategy differed somewhat across country markets (average advertising theme and sales promotional tactics standardization ratings: 4.5 and 5.5, respectively). Nonetheless, most sales were made to retailers rather than to institutions (average channel design standardization rating: 7.0). But perhaps because of the nature of the product and

the fact that the company uses local subsidiaries and agents in different markets, the competitive decision-making process across countries did not appear to be tightly coordinated (average item rating: 3.0). On the other hand, production was concentrated in four countries - Italy, Germany, Argentina, and Uruguay - with apparently centrally controlled product design and development function (average item rating: 7.0):

Focused on the production of value-added rice, F&P Gruppo described itself as 'the rice specialist' and was one of only a few companies in the world involved in the entire process, from growing and milling to the packaging and marketing of brand rice. The company added value through research and development of new and improved strains of high- quality rice, proprietary manufacturing processes, and

packaging... A high percentage of the resulting profits were, in turn, reinvested in research and development (p. 1).

Archetype C Like the Infrastructural Minimalists, this archetype adopts a mixed standardization policy, but in a different way. Although it is moderately standardized in the area of sales promotion tactics (average item rating: 5.7), its product design, advertising theme, pricing policy, and especially channel design are more localized as compared with at least one other archetype (t> 2.584). And, although its average brand name standardization rating is not low (at 6.1), this rating is comparatively lower than those of the other two archetypes (ta 3.166). Its marketing value chain activities, especially the

product design/development and distribution/ logistics functions, are also more dispersed (t-> 2.160). Likewise, its advertising and promotional planning function is clearly more dispersed than that of the Global Marketers (t=3.716). But

perhaps how this archetype truly differs from the Infrastructural Minimalists is that it is comparatively more integrated in its competitive process in terms of communication and mutual consultation (t=3.143), even while its competitive decision- making process does not appear to be particularly integrated. Because the emphasis of its international marketing strategy is in the coordination (namely, mutual consultation) of tactics (namely, sales promotion tactics) rather than in the standardization of tangible elements such as product designs and channel design, or in the concentration of marketing functions, we label this archetype the Tactical Coordinators. A case that is representative of this pattern is AXA: The Global Insurance


International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al ? 513

Company (Goodman and Moreton, 1995). Like many other multinational insurance firms, AXA pursued a rather localized approach to marketing its products, owing to heavy local regulation of insurance sales:

Insurance was one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world, with wide variation in the degree and scope of regulation. In general, all countries required that insurers obtain a license to sell insurance... In addition, insurance regulations often stipulated accounting methods and reporting requirements... Insurers were also limited in the types of assets in which they invested premiums. In a few countries, regulators also strictly controlled premium rates and contract terms (p. 6).

Moreover, AXA's international expansion in the late 1980s and early 1990s occurred mainly through acquisitions, resulting in a complex holdings structure with multiple registered company names in different countries. Hence the average standardization item ratings for product design, channel design, and pricing ranged from a low of 2.5 to 3.0. The concentration of marketing value-chain activities was also apparently rather low (e.g., with an average distribution and logistics planning concentration rating of 3.0), presumably because of the lack of scale economies in sales and marketing activities:

Typically, sales and marketing, along with claims adjusting, represented the two largest cost factors for an insurance company, followed by underwriting and asset management. Of these four activities, only claims adjusting and asset management demonstrated any scale economies. Under- writing and sales were labor intense and generally varied in direct proportion to the volume of premiums written (p. 3).

However, what stood out in the AXA case was a moderate-to-high level of competitive process integration, with average competitive decision-making and communication/mutual consultation ratings of 5.0 and 7.5, respectively. The following quote illustrates this pattern:

Still, Bebear's objective was to make AXA not just a French company with foreign subsidiaries, but a truly global organization that would draw on the strengths of every country in which it operated. To implement this objective, he created the Strategy Committee, which would set corporate objectives and oversee their implementation. Apart from Bebear, the group included five senior French executives.., and five representatives of AXA's major foreign operations... The company also began to put into place a common MIS system.., to improve the quality and comparability of information in the company (p. 13).

As a result, some of AXA's sales promotional tactics could have been well coordinated across country

markets (average sales promotional tactics standardization rating: 7.5).

In summary, each of the three derived archetypes exhibits a distinctive configuration of market offering, structural/organizational, and competitive process. The configurations are somewhat complex, with no clear-cut correlations among the strategy dimensions, which means that they would not have been well captured using unidimensional scales or an aggregate score alone.

To corroborate the above observation, we performed a descriptive canonical discriminant analysis based on the cluster groupings. Figure 3a shows the positions of the various cases and their respective cluster centroids relative to two canonical discriminant functions or axes. The horizontal axis (Function 1), which discriminates the Global

a K-means cluster 0 Cluster A

4 - 0 Cluster B A Cluster C

o [E Group Centroid

0 o

2 - bC pster B

o 0 0 0o 0 g

U 0 0 0 Clus-Wr

A o

a 0 o

a Clustg•r o -2 - a o

B A

-4 -2 0 2 4 Function 1

b 0.8

0.6 ST CHANNEL

ST BRAND -CONC

PDM 0.4

CONC LO•_(T

0.2 RI

0

-

~ CdNC A&P .2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

-0.2 ST DESIGN

04ST ADTHEME -0.4INT CONSULT INT DECISION

-0.6

Figure 3 Plots from canonical discriminant analysis of cluster

groupings: (a) positions of cases and centroids relative to two discriminant functions; (b) unstandardized coefficients for Function 1 (horizontal) and Function 2 (vertical).


) International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al 514

Marketers from the other two archetypes, is positively related to all of the 11 strategy dimensions used in the cluster analysis (see Figure 3b). This appears to be a broad-spectrum function that behaves like Zou and Cavusgil's (2002) aggregate GMS factor. Cases rated collectively high on the 11 dimensions would tend to be classified under the Global Marketers archetype. More interesting, however, is the vertical axis (Function 2), which, unlike the GMS factor, serves to further discriminate between the Infrastructural Minimalists (more positive) and the Tactical Coordinators (more negative). This function is positively related to brand name standardization, channel design standardization, product design and development concentration, and distribution and logistics planning concentration, all of which characterize the Infra- structural Minimalists archetype when highly rated. This function is also negatively related to sales promotional tactics standardization and integration of communication and mutual consultation, both of which are characteristic of the Tactical Coordinators archetype when highly rated. Thus, when a firm's strategy does not clearly belong to the Global Marketer archetype (with high values on all dimensions), it will fall under either the Infrastructural Minimalists or Tactical Coordinator based upon the configuration of values it has on the determinants of Function 2.

Evolutionary drivers of archetypes Having found evidence of the existence of three distinct archetypes of international marketing strategy, it is appropriate at this point to ask how the archetypes came about: that is, whether there might have been any common exogenous forces imposed on firms belonging to each archetype, forces that have driven their similarity through one or more of the evolutionary mechanisms described by Miller (1981, 1986) - namely, environmental selection, mimetic action, and firm strategic choice. We tried to answer this question by returning to the cases to look for commonalities within clusters. In keeping with the configurational thinking, we sought to identify holistic sets of exogenous factors as drivers. Because of the qualitative nature of this step, we were limited in our analytical precision. Yet we noted three interesting patterns.

First, an inspection of the list of cases classified as the Global Marketers reveals that many of these businesses faced conditions favoring a global

approach to managing their marketing operations, such as minimal or diminishing cultural differences in purchase and consumption behaviors, the lack of or disappearing peculiar local regulations, scale economies in marketing value-chain functions, and the presence of 'global' competitors that required the shared attention of all subsidiary managers. Similar to the construct of 'external globalizing conditions' defined by Zou and Cavus- gil (2002), such conditions encourage, or even necessitate, high levels of market offering standardization, value-chain concentration, and competitive process integration. For example, the Sony Europa case (Kashani and Kassarjian, 1998) describes how Sony's European unit was grappling with a set of market forces, including the increasing consolidation of competitors and buyers. Along with the potential for greater cost savings from streamlining operations across markets and the desire to unify the representation of regional interests, this led to the creation of a pan-European marketing organization (treated as a global marketing strategy when the geographic scope of analysis is restricted to the region).

Second, an examination of the cases classified as the Infrastructural Minimalists suggests that many of these companies were involved in product businesses where consumer tastes and preferences differed significantly across countries. Several food companies fall into this cluster, including Gallo Rice, Ben & Jerry's (an ice-cream producer), and Nando's (a fast-food chain), as do a couple of beauty/grooming products companies, namely Mary Kay and L'Oreal. In these businesses, there might also be certain local regulations concerning the production and sale of the product. Thus some of the advantages of standardizing the market offering might not be relevant to these firms. Furthermore, perhaps because of the need to deal with local competitors, a worldwide coordination of competitive processes might not be necessary. Nevertheless, there might still be substantial brand equity effects associated with these businesses, as demonstrated in the Ben & Jerry's case (Hagen, 1999), where the company frequently used licensing mode to enter foreign markets. Also, there could be established channel and distribution

strategies that have worked very well in these industries, as demonstrated by Mary Kay's (Laidler, 1996) frequent use of its direct selling method. These companies therefore could have found it advantageous to provide a minimal brand and channel infrastructure for their international mar-


International marketing etrategy archetype Lewis KS Lim et a )

515

keting operations, but otherwise leave the major marketing decisions to local managers.

Third, a look at the cases typifying the Tactical Coordinators points to the possibility that many of these companies not only did not experience any market forces that encouraged standardizing their market offering in a major way, but also did not see substantial scale economies in consolidating any part of their marketing value chains. The AXA case mentioned earlier illustrates this possibility. None- theless, the similarity of competitive environments, including the presence of shared competitors across country markets, could have motivated these companies to coordinate their competitive decisions and tactics on a worldwide scale. For example, several companies, such as Nestle, Euro RSCG, and ICI Paints, faced global competitors even as they operated in local country environments. It might therefore have been critical for these companies to have high degrees of communication and mutual consultation as well as harmonization of competitive tactics across country units.

In summary, a combination of environmental factors and market forces appears to drive the type of international marketing strategy adopted by any given multinational firm.

Pla: A configuration of environmental and market factors that creates incentives for a global approach to marketing management, including a high degree of similarity in customer tastes and preferences across countries, the absence of local regulations, the presence of scale economies in operating marketing value-chain activities, and the presence of global competitors, is likely to engender a strategy resembling the Global Marketers archetype.

Plb: A configuration of environmental and market factors that does not particularly encourage a global marketing management approach, including different customer tastes and preferences across countries, existing local regulations, and the need to deal with local competitors, but that at the same time encourages sharing a common brand and channel infrastructure, such as when there are global brand recognition and established distribution strategies, is likely to engender a strategy resembling the Infrastructural Minim- alists archetype.

Plc: A configuration of environmental and market factors that does not particularly encourage a global marketing management approach, including different customer tastes and preferences across countries, existing local regulations, and the absence of scale economies in marketing operations, but that at the same time encourages the coordination of competitive decisions and tactics across markets, such as the commonality of competitive environments and shared competitors, is likely to engender a strategy resembling the Tactical Coordinators archetype.

Archetype performance potential: subsidiary network contingent fit considerations After considering the possible drivers of the different international marketing strategy archetypes, the next question one might pose is: 'Which archetype(s) is/are liable to lead to stronger multinational firm performance?'7 This is an important question because, arguably, the ultimate concern for the study of any area of strategy is to explain firm performance variations (Rumelt et al., 1994). (Here, of course, we take the position that performance variations among the archetypes are still likely, even though it has been stated earlier that each of the archetypes is potentially high performing.) However, this is also a difficult question because the relationship between strategy and performance is itself a complex issue. In particular, the implementation context within which a firm operates may influence the effectiveness of any given strategy (Walker and Ruekert, 1987; Noble and Mokwa, 1999). The implementation context imposes peculiar constraints upon the firm, so firm performance is partly a function of how unencumbered the strategy is by those constraints. An important aspect of a multinational firm's implementation context is its network of international subsidiaries," given that a significant proportion of a multinational's marketing activities is executed (whether or not planned) at the local subsidiary level (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995; Solberg, 2000). Research suggests that subsidiary-level factors have the potential to either help or hurt the effective implementation of a multinational's intended strategy (e.g., Wiechmann and Pringle, 1979; Hulbert et al., 1980; Hewett and Bearden, 2001). Therefore, in discussing the performance potential of any international marketing strategy archetype, the characteristics of the subsidiary network need to be considered. In other words, rather than simply order the relative superiority of the different archetypes, it is necessary to examine the contingent fit (Doty et al., 1993) of each archetype with the subsidiary network characteristics.

There are potentially several different subsidiary network characteristics to be considered. These include the scope of subsidiary responsibilities, the level of autonomy held by each subsidiary, the degree of subsidiary dependence on the head office, and the degree of interdependence among subsidiaries. One way to incorporate the effect of these characteristics into the prediction of archetype performance is to model each characteristic as



a moderator of the archetype-performance relationship. Statistically, this involves analyzing the interaction between each characteristic and the various strategy variables that make up an archetype. This is referred to as the interaction approach to studying contingent fit (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985). However, as Miller (1981) and Meyer et al. (1993) point out, such a 'reductionist' approach is generally aimed at isolating the effects of single contingency variables, and often unrealistically assumes unidirectional linear relationships among the variables. From the perspective of configurational theory, this approach is not ideal for understanding holistic combinatorial patterns of fit between multiple strategy variables and multiple contingency factors. An alternative approach that is more consistent with the configurational thinking underlying this research is to identify configurations of contextual variables that fit well with the respective strategy archetypes. Like the archetypes, each of these contextual configurations is a multidimensional combination of distinct characteristics. This way, multiple subsidiary network characteristics serving as contextual contingencies can be simultaneously considered. Strategy archetypes and contextual contingencies that fit well with each other can be viewed as extended configurations of mutually supportive elements, similar in spirit to Miller's (1986) matching of compatible configurations of strategy and structure. At the same time, when there is a lack of unique one-to- one fit between strategy and context, equifinality can be said to exist.

While the lack of data prevents a fresh taxonomic discovery of common configurations of subsidiary network characteristics along with an integrated testing of fit with the strategy archetypes earlier uncovered, research on multinational subsidiary behavior has previously identified three configurations of subsidiary roles and structural contexts (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995). Because these 'subsidiary roles' and 'structural context' variables appear to broadly describe the nature of a multinational subsidiary network, the three configurations can be used here to analytically examine the contingent fit of the three uncovered archetypes.

The specialized contributor As described by Birkinshaw and Morrison (1995), one type of subsidiary network is characterized by high levels of subsidiary expertise in specific functions or activities. Specifically, each subsidiary

has a wide geographic scope but a narrow functional scope of responsibilities. The degree of strategic autonomy held by each subsidiary is moderate, and subsidiaries are highly dependent on the head office as well as on one another for materials and resources. Because each subsidiary contributes to the overall functioning of the multinational in a specialized manner, this subsidiary network type is labeled the 'Specialized Contribu- tor'. In relation to previous literature, this type of network resembles Bartlett and Ghoshal's (1986) 'Contributor', Jarillo and Martinez's (1990) 'Recep- tive', and White and Poynter's (1984) 'Rationalized Manufacturer'. Such a subsidiary network is likely to impose constraints on the implementation of either an Infrastructural Minimalist or a Tactical Coordinator strategy archetype, because each subsidiary does not possess a full range of functional (marketing) expertise to effectively determine a local mixed adaptation strategy, even though it possesses moderate strategic autonomy. Moreover, the rationalized global design does not seem to be compatible with the relatively dispersed marketing value-chain structure of either of the two mentioned strategy archetypes. On the other hand, this subsidiary network type seems to support a Global Marketer strategy, because (a) the wide geographic and narrow functional scope of subsidiary responsibilities facilitate the creation of a standardized market offering, (b) the activity specialization design accommodates a concentrated marketing value chain, and (c) the moderate autonomy and high interdependence among subsidiaries are conducive for achieving integration in the competitive decision and marketing planning process.

The local implementer A second type of subsidiary network is characterized by both limited geographic scope and low strategic autonomy assigned to each local subsidiary (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995). This type of network also exhibits a high degree of subsidiary dependence on the head office, as well as high interdependence among subsidiaries for materials and resources. Because each subsidiary is essentially tasked to execute the strategy formulated by the head office, such a subsidiary network is labeled the 'Local Implementer'. This type of network closely corresponds to Bartlett and Ghoshal's (1986) 'Implementer', D'Cruz's (1986) 'Branch Plant', and White and Poynter's (1984) 'Miniature Replica' subsidiary types. Such a subsidiary network is


International marketing strategy archehypes Lewis KS Lim et al "? 517

unlikely to facilitate a Global Marketer strategy, given the lack of activity specialization on a worldwide scale and the lack of strategic integration across subsidiaries. Also, because the subsidiaries' marketing strategy formulation capabilities are likely to be limited (because of the historical lack of strategic autonomy), this subsidiary network type seems incompatible with the Tactical Coordi- nator strategy, which requires a high degree of local responsiveness. In contrast, the implementation of an Infrastructural Minimalist strategy seems less encumbered. Even though the Infrastructural Minimalist strategy also requires some degree of local initiative in the design of market offering and competitive decision-making, the level of corporate support in terms of branding, channel structure, and product development is greater. Individual subsidiaries could take advantage of such infrastructure to build their local marketing expertise.

The world mandate A third type of subsidiary network is characterized by the delegation of worldwide/regional responsibilities (or 'mandate') for entire product businesses to individual subsidiaries (Birkinshaw and Morri- son, 1995; Birkinshaw, 1996; Birkinshaw and Hood, 1998). Each subsidiary has almost complete strategic autonomy and functional control over its mandated business, and is not dependent on the head office or other subsidiaries for materials and resources associated with that business. This type of subsidiary network is referred to as the 'World Mandate' (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995), and closely corresponds to Bartlett and Ghoshal's (1986) 'Strategic Leader', Gupta and Govindarajan's (1991) 'Integrated Player', and Roth and Morrison's (1992) 'Global Subsidiary Mandate'. Because subsidiaries in this type of network have extensive management capabilities and knowledge in at least one product business, their managers are unlikely to be recep- tive to a Global Marketer strategy for the entire range of the multinational firm's products. Each subsidiary's managers may see unique linkages among the various products, and hence be motivated to customize the market offerings for their respective country market. At the same time, because individual subsidiaries carry a full range of functional expertise but not necessarily product category expertise in all categories, some degree of resource-sharing or cross-market consultation may be desirable. Consequently, either an Infrastructur- al Minimalist or a Tactical Coordinator strategy

archetype may fit well with this subsidiary network type, creating an equifinal situation. In the case of an Infrastructural Minimalist strategy, country subsidiaries can share certain infrastructural marketing strategy elements (e.g., brand name and channel structure) that do not interfere with the development of differential product mandates across subsidiaries. In the case of a Tactical Coor- dinator strategy, subsidiaries merely consult regu- larly with one another to coordinate their competitive tactics (e.g., sales promotions) without under- mining each subsidiary's product-market authority.

In summary, the three archetypes may be differentially effective given different implementation contexts, depending upon their contingent fit within each context (see Figure 4):

P2a: When implemented within a subsidiary network context that is characterized by a wide geographic but narrow functional scope of subsidiary responsibilities, moderate subsidiary autonomy, high dependence on the head office, and high interdependence among subsidiaries, the contingent fit of the Global Marketers archetype will be the strongest, and hence its performance potential will be the greatest among the three known archetypes.

P2b: When implemented within a subsidiary network context that is characterized by a narrow geographic scope of subsidiary responsibilities, low subsidiary autonomy, high dependence on the head office, and high interdependence among subsidiaries, the contingent fit of the Infra- structural Minimalists archetype will be the strongest, and hence its performance potential will be the greatest among the three known archetypes.

P2c: When implemented within a subsidiary network context that is characterized by a wide geographic and functional scope of subsidiary responsibilities, high subsidiary autonomy, low dependence on the head office, and low interdependence among subsidiaries, the contingent fit of both the Infrastructural Minimalists archetype and the Tactical Coordinators archetype will be equally strong, and their performance potentials will be greater than that of the Global Marketers archetype.

Note that strong contingent fit within each context does not mean a complete lack of encumbrances or constraints that may be posed to the strategy. Therefore, archetype performance may not always be optimized (as is likely with the Local Implemen- ter network situation described above). In Gresov and Drazin's (1997) terms, this is possible because a given context can place multiple, conflicting demands on the organization, rendering all organizational strategies suboptimal in some ways. However, when the subsidiary network context



S-- --------------i-.

5\ I, \I I Global Marketers '' Infrastructural Minimalists Tactical Coordinators II II I II II I

V-- -- -- -- -- -

I - ,

"---"- -"-

- - -

---

Specialized Contributor Local Implementer I World Mandate * Wide geographic but narrow * Narrow geographic scope of * Wide geographic and functional

functional scope of subsidiary I subsidiary responsibilities scope of subsidiary responsibilities I Low subsidiary autonomy responsibilities

* Moderate subsidiary autonomy I I High dependence on head office High subsidiary autonomy * High dependence on head office High interdependence among I Low dependence on head office * High interdependence among I subsidiaries * Low interdependence among

subsidiaries I subsidiaries j II \ I I/

t- *I- - - --_________________ - ---

Dual-directional arrow denotes a contingent fit between an archetype and a configuration of subsidiary network characteristics. Contingent fit implies strong performance potential. Multiple instances contingent fitfor a given configuration of subsidiary network characteristics indicate an equifinal situation (Gresov and Drazin, 1997).

Pattern of characteristics within dotted area may be viewed as an extended configuration of mutually-supportive elements. This can be treated as a contingent ideal profile (Doty et al., 1993) and tested using a profile deviation methodology.

Figure 4 Contingent fit between archetypes and configurations of subsidiary network characteristics.

facilitates the implementation of more than one strategy archetype, equifinality is present (as is likely with the World Mandate network situation described above). This is because alternative strategies are capable of meeting different subsets of the contextual demands (Gresov and Drazin, 1997).

Conclusion and future directions A fundamental element in the development of a scientific body of knowledge is the availability of a widely accepted and usable classification scheme... (McKelvey, 1975, 509).

This paper began with the premise that the meaningful characterization and classification of international marketing strategies are essential to understanding the various strategic options that a multinational firm has in structuring its marketing approaches across different country markets. Indeed, the field has, over the years, attained a good appreciation of the nature of international marketing strategies simply by knowing how they can differ. Beginning with Buzzell (1968), scholars have tried to describe the international marketing strategies of multinational firms using such category labels as 'standardized' vs 'adapted' (e.g., Jain, 1989). Later scholars have also invoked the categories of 'concentrated' vs 'dispersed' (e.g., Craig and Douglas, 2000) and 'integrated' vs 'independent' (e.g., Hamel and Prahalad, 1985). These labels have given researchers, students, and practitioners

alike a useful vocabulary with which to describe the very concept of 'international marketing strategy'.

However, this paper also puts forth the argument that, in order to advance our body of knowledge, the study of international marketing strategy should also take on a holistic, configurational view and not be confined to a single characterization - be it standardization-adaptation, concentration- dispersion, or integration-independence - or be reliant on a single index of 'globalness' (e.g., Zou and Cavusgil, 2002). A configurational approach provides tremendous utility not only in terms of the richness of description, but also in its capacity to guide scholarly and managerial thinking about the multifaceted nature of international marketing strategy. In adopting this approach, scholars and managers should consider how the various strategy dimensions combine or align themselves into gestalt patterns or modal archetypes.

To substantiate our argument, we have conducted a novel case coding/clustering study to uncover distinct combinatorial patterns along 11 theory- based dimensions of standardization-adaptation, concentration-dispersion, and integration-independence. We found three archetypes within a sample of exemplars of international marketing strategy. While one of these archetypes (the Global Marketers) could well have been captured using a single aggregate globalness score (e.g., the GMS, Zou and Cavusgil, 2002), the other two archetypes



were detected mainly because we have used a configurational procedure, which discriminated between different mixed patterns of globalness. The detection of these archetypes shows that strategic marketing options available to multinational firms can be more richly described and meaningfully compared when a holistic, multidimensional perspective that unifies the three separate characterizations is taken.

After uncovering the archetypes, a further step to synthesize our knowledge of international business and international strategy necessarily includes the identification of evolutionary drivers of the respective archetypes and an assessment of potential performance variations among the archetypes. In our study, several archetype drivers were induced from common environmental factors and market forces within case clusters. Archetype performance potential, on the other hand, remains a more complex issue involving the consideration of contingent fit between each archetype and the implementation context. As we are focusing on marketing strategies of multinational firms, we propose that configurations of subsidiary network characteristics represent important implementation contexts. Indeed, subsidiary-level issues are increasingly gaining attention within the international business literature (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1990; Nohria and Ghoshal, 1997; Rugman and Verbeke, 2001). More significantly, as international marketing activities rely on the efforts of local subsidiaries to occur, it is reasonable to expect the type of subsidiary network to either facilitate or hinder the effective implementation of any given international marketing strategy. In the final analysis, whether strategy archetypes result in superior or equifinal performance would depend on the extent to which their implementation is unencumbered by the existing subsidiary network characteristics.

The new holistic characterization of international marketing strategy as archetypes and the added understanding of archetype drivers and performance potential serve not only to advance the theory of international marketing, but also to provide a multifaceted perspective for teaching the subject. To that end, our study has contributed three archetypes of international marketing strategy that would not have been understood using any of the traditional textbook descriptors (e.g., 'standardized', 'concentrated', 'integrated', etc.) alone. Yet these archetypes represent modal combinatorial patterns found among exemplars of inter-

national marketing strategies. Pedagogically, they can facilitate a more in-depth discussion of the different types of international marketing strategy, especially when illustrated with representative teaching cases. Furthermore, by linking them to a relevant set of evolutionary forces, and raising the issue of their contingent fit with certain subsidiary network characteristics, a more insightful dialogue about causal processes in the international marketing arena can be encouraged.

With the above conclusions in mind, an agenda for the further study of international marketing strategy archetypes and examination of their drivers and performance variations is hereby proposed. A crucial first step in this agenda would be to systematically validate the archetypes by gathering additional evidence other than from published cases. This would involve the measurement of international marketing strategies using a variety of alternative sources (e.g., archival records, inter- views, surveys). In this regard, the diverse data collection approaches of Miller and Friesen (1980), Doty et al. (1993), and Ketchen et al. (1993), among others, could be borrowed. Alternative procedures for quantifying the dimensions of international marketing strategy should also be explored. Cluster analysis, or other statistical techniques, could then be performed on the data to derive modal patterns of international marketing strategy. To ensure reliability, the derived archetypes should be cross- validated with results from multiple data sets as well as from different statistical procedures.

After a robust set of archetypes has been established, the next step in the research agenda would be to systematically examine the observations grouped under each archetype to analyze their common evolutionary drivers. Perhaps it is the environmental forces that dictate the adoption of a particular type of strategy. Perhaps the historical development or conventional practices of their respective industries have somehow favored the same kind of strategy. Or perhaps the competitive and social interactions among different players within a network of firms have encouraged the sharing of knowledge and preferences with respect to strategy design. In Miller's (1987) terms, different 'imperatives' or causal forces can give rise to configurational archetypes. These possible underlying causes should be thoroughly investigated from multiple theoretical perspectives. In addition, methods such as comparative case studies and longitudinal tracking of strategy profiles for a panel of firms may be utilized for empirical evaluations.


; International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al

520

Finally, after archetypes have been identified and their antecedents understood, the performance potential of different archetypes would be the main subject of interest. Direct comparisons of performance indicators across archetypes are unlikely to result in any meaningful findings, because, as discussed, the relationship between international marketing strategy and multinational firm performance is likely to be contingent upon the implementation context. Traditional statistical testing of strategy-performance moderators involving interaction terms may also not be appropriate because of the need to consider multiple contextual contingencies. As illustrated above, the matching of compatible configurations of strategy and implementation contexts from a contingent fit perspective (Miller, 1986; Doty et al., 1993) may prove to be a more efficacious approach to understanding archetype performance variations. To seriously pursue the contingent fit approach, richer configurations of implementation contexts based on a comprehensive set of subsidiary network characteristics and other relevant variables should be explored from the same data set(s) used to generate the strategy archetypes. Compa- tible matched pairs of these configurations with the respective archetypes can then be treated as extended configurations and tested for contingent fit using a profile deviation methodology (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Gresov, 1989), which analyzes the effect of deviation (measured in Euclidean distance) from each extended configurational profile. As part of this assessment, different forms of equifinality among the archetypes (Gresov and Drazin, 1997) can also be tested.

Acknowledgements We gratefully thank the Indiana University Center for International Business Education and Research (IU CIBER) for funding the empirical component of this study. We also thank Professors Alan Rugman, Hans Thorelli, Keith Blois, Shaoming Zou, Rockney Walters, Rebecca Slotegraaf, Krishna Erramilli, and Changsu Kim for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Special thanks go to JIBS Departmental Editor Professor G. Tomas M. Hult and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms and guidance throughout the review process. Finally, we thank the two groups of Kelley School student assistants whom we engaged in Spring 2004 and Fall 2004 to perform the data coding.

Notes

1 In jain (1989), a brief section was devoted to pointing out that the various marketing mix elements (product design, brand name, packaging, etc.) can be differentially standardized. Nevertheless, the author did not discuss the potential implications of such differential standardization levels. Moreover, the author states, 'Conceptually, standardization of one or more parts of the marketing program is a function of five [antecedents]...' (Jain, 1989, 71), implying either that standardization of one part of the marketing program sufficiently qualifies as a 'standardization' strategy, or that standardizations of different parts of the marketing program are conceptually equivalent.

2The eight first-order dimensions were product standardization, promotion standardization, standardized channel structure, standardized price, concentration of marketing activities, coordination of marketing activities, global market participation, and integration of competitive moves.

3All scale items were developed through extensive consultations among the authors based on existing definitions of strategy dimensions in the literature (e.g., Zou and Cavusgil, 2002) and with the inputs of colleagues who had knowledge of international marketing. It is important to note that our coding scheme scale is not comparable with a typical survey scale. Even though each strategy dimension was captured by only a single scale item, the process of completing each scale item on our coding scheme was a painstaking one involving a thorough reading of a case by the coder concerned, a search for relevant passages in the case to support the rating given, and (if necessary) a discussion with the other coder to resolve any discrepancies in each other's ratings. We therefore believe a single item scale was sufficiently reliable for each dimension.

4Admittedly, by removing the five items with high incidence of missing values, the amount of information available for cluster-analyzing international marketing strategies was reduced, and the weight distributed to each broad strategy dimension was affected. Further, by replacing the remaining missing values with item means, the total variance in the dataset was reduced in unpredictable ways (we thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing that out). Unfortunately, missing data was an inherent limitation of our data collection method, and we had to deal with it in the most pragmatic way. We did, however, examine the correlations between removed and retained items, and found them to be moderately



high and significant within each broad strategy dimension (e.g., integration-independence), meaning the retained items should have captured some information contained in the removed items. We did also try to perform the cluster analysis using an equal number of items (specifically, two) per broad dimensions, selecting the ones that had greater variance and were less correlated with other items. The cluster solution turned out to be similar to the one we report, meaning our results were reasonably robust despite the reduction of total variance and the redistribution of weight among the three broad strategy dimensions.

5Subtler distinctions were illuminated when the top branch in the two-cluster solution (see dendrogram in Figure 1) was treated as two sub-branches instead. As we found later, those two sub-branches were associated with two (separate) mixed configurations of standardization, concentration, and integration strategies, labeled as the Infrastructural Minimalists and the Tactical Coordinators, respectively. Without separating these sub-branches, the two clusters would have been identified as a single cluster of (moderately) low ratings across all dimensions.

6Because statistical testing of cluster differences along dimensions used to derive the clusters is mean- ingless (Lattin et al., 2003), we do not report the

p-values or significance levels for the pseudo-t statistics. The pseudo-t's are used here for interpretive purposes only; no statistical inferences about population parameters are made. As a rule of thumb, however, we pay attention to pseudo-t's of greater than 2.0 and treat these as sizeable differences.

7Multinational firm performance is broadly defined here as organizational effectiveness at the corporation level that translates into superior market and financial performance. It is acknowledged that distinctions may be made across multiple dimensions of firm performance (e.g., market share, profitability, growth). When disaggregated, performance may also vary considerably across country subsidiaries. However, we focus here on a general corporation-level performance construct and leave the finer distinctions to future research.

8The term 'subsidiary' is broadly used here to refer to any unit of a multinational corporation that is located in a country outside its home base. For the present purpose, no distinction is made across different legal/equity holding statuses per se of various subsidiaries, except when these statuses affect the substantive characteristics of the subsidiary network, in which case the configuration of subsidiary characteristics should capture the differences.

References Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1986) 'Tap your subsidiaries for

global reach', Harvard Business Review 64(6): 87-94. Birkinshaw, J. (1996) 'How multinational subsidiary mandates

are gained and lost', Journal of International Business Studies 27(3): 467-496.

Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (1998) 'Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies', Academy of Management Review 23(4): 773-795.

Birkinshaw, J.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1995) 'Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations', Journal of International Business Studies 26(4): 729-753.

Boddewyn, J.J., Soehl, R. and Picard, J. (1986) 'Standardization in international marketing: is Ted Levitt in fact right?' Business Horizons 29(6): 69-75.

Buzzell, R.D. (1968) 'Can you standardize multinational marketing?' Harvard Business Review 46(6): 102-11 3.

Child, J. (1972) 'Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice', Sociology 6(1): 1-22.

Corey, E.R. (1998) 'Writing cases and teaching notes', Harvard Business School Note No. 9-399-077, Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000) 'Configural advantage in global markets', Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 6-25.

D'Cruz, J.R. (1986) 'Strategic Management of Subsidiaries', in H. Etemad and L.S. Dulude (eds.) Managing the Multinational Subsidiary, Croom Helm: London, pp: 75-80.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) 'The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields', American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-1 60.

Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H. and Huber, G.P. (1993) 'Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories', Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1196-1250.

Douglas, S.P. and Wind, Y. (1987) 'The myth of globalization', Columbia Journal of World Business 22(4): 47-58.

Drazin, R. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1985) 'Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory', Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4): 514--539.

Elinder, E. (1961) 'How international can European advertising be?' The International Advertiser (December): 12-16.

Fatt, A.C. (1964) 'A multinational approach to international advertising', The International Advertiser (September): 17-20.

Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1990) 'The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network', Academy of Management Review 15(4): 603-625.

Goodman, J.B. and Moreton, P. (1995) 'AXA: the global insurance company', Harvard Business School Case No. 9- 793-094 (rev. 15 November 1995), Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Gresov, C. (1989) 'Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies', Administrative Science Quarterly 34(3): 431-453.

Gresov, C. and Drazin, R. (1997) 'Equifinality: functional equivalence in organization design', Academy of Management Review 22(2): 403-428.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) 'Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations', Academy of Management Review 16(4): 768-792.

Hagen, J.M. (1999) 'Ben & Jerry's - Japan', Richard Ivey School of Business Case No. 9A99A037, Ivey Management Services: London, Ontario, Canada.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.



Hambrick, D.C. (1984) 'Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: some conceptual and methodological issues', Journal of Management 10(1): 27-41.

Hambrick, D.C. and Schecter, S.M. (1983) 'Turnaround strategies for mature industrial-product business units', Academy of Management Journal 26(2): 231-248.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1985) 'Do you really have a global strategy?' Harvard Business Review 63(4): 1 39-148.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977) 'The population ecology of organizations', American journal of Sociology 82(5): 929-964.

Henzler, H. and Rall, W. (1986) 'Facing up to the globalization challenge', McKinsey Quarterly 86(1): 52-68.

Hewett, K. and Bearden, W.O. (2001) 'Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of foreign subsidiary marketing operations: implications for managing global marketing operations', Journal of Marketing 65(4): 51-66.

Hout, T., Porter, M.E. and Rudden, E. (1982) 'How global companies win out', Harvard Business Review 60(5): 98-105.

Hovell, P.J. and Walters, P.G.P. (1972) 'International marketing presentations: some options', European Journal of Marketing 6(2): 69-79.

Hulbert, J.M., Brandt, W.K. and Richers, R. (1980) 'Marketing planning in the multinational subsidiary: practices and problems', Journal of Marketing 44(3): 7-15.

Jain, S.C. (1989) 'Standardization of international marketing strategy: some research hypotheses', Journal of Marketing 53(1): 70-79.

Jain, S.C. (2001) Marketing Planning and Strategy, 6th edn. Thomson-Southwestern Publishing: Cincinnati, OH.

Jarillo, J.C. and Martinez, J.I. (1990) 'Different roles for subsidiaries: the case of multinational corporations in Spain', Strategic Management Journal 11(7): 501-512.

Jauch, L.R., Osborn, R.N. and Martin, T.N. (1980) 'Structured content analysis of cases: a complementary method for organizational research', Academy of Management Review 5(4): 517-525.

Kashani, K. and Kassarjian, J.B.M. (1998) 'Sony Europa (A)', IMD Case No. IMD-5-0488, Lausanne, Switzerland: International Institute for Management Development.

Keegan, W.J. (1969) 'Multinational product planning: strategic alternatives', Journal of Marketing 33(1): 58-62.

Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton: New York.

Kerin, R.A. and Peterson, R.A. (2004) Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and Comments, 10th edn, Pearson Prentice- Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp: 324-340.

Ketchen, D.J., Combs, J.G., Russell, C.J., Shook, C., Dean, M.A., Runge, J., Lohrke, F.T., Naumann, S.E., Haptonstahl, D.E., Baker, R., Beckstein, B.A., Handler, C., Honig, H. and Lamoureux, S. (1997) 'Organizational configurations and performance: a meta-analysis', Academy of Management Journal 40(1): 223-240.

Ketchen, D.J. and Shook, C.L. (1996) 'The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique', Strategic Management Journal 17(6): 441-458.

Ketchen, D.J., Thomas, J.B. and Snow, C.C. (1993) 'Organiza- tional configurations and performance: a comparison of theoretical approaches', Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1278-1313.

Kotler, P. (1986) 'Global standardization: courting danger', Journal of Consumer Marketing 3(2): 13-15.

Laidler, N. (1996) 'Mary Kay Cosmetics: Asian Market Entry', Harvard Business School Case No. 9-594-023 (rev. 26 July 1996), Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Laidler, N. (1998) 'Gallo Rice', Harvard Business School Case No. 9-593-018 (rev. January 6, 1998), Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Lambin, J. (2004) 'Godiva Europe', in R.A. Kerin and R.A. Peterson (eds.) Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and

Comments, 10th edn, Pearson Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp: 324-340.

Larsson, R. (1993) 'Case survey methodology: quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies', Academy of Manage- ment Journal 36(6): 1515-1546.

Lattin, J.M., Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (2003) Analyzing Multivariate Data, Thomson Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA.

Levitt, T. (1983) 'The globalization of markets', Harvard Business Review 61(3): 92-102.

McKelvey, B. (1975) 'Guidelines for the empirical classification of organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly 20(4): 509-525.

Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S. and Hinings, C.R. (1993) 'Configurational approaches to organizational analysis', Academy of Manage- ment Journal 36(6): 1175-1195.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978) Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Miller, D. (1981) 'Toward a new contingency approach: the search for organizational gestalts', Journal of Management Studies 18(1): 1-26.

Miller, D. (1986) 'Configurations of strategy and structure: towards a synthesis', Strategic Management Journal 7(3): 233-249.

Miller, D. (1987) 'The genesis of configuration', Academy of Management Review 12(4): 686-701.

Miller, D. (1996) 'Configurations revisited', Strategic Manage- ment Journal 17(7): 505-512.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1977) 'Strategy making in context: ten empirical archetypes', Journal of Management Studies 14(3): 251-280.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1978) 'Archetypes of strategy formulation', Management Science 24(9): 921-933.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1980) 'Archetypes of organizational transition', Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2): 268-299.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984) Organizations: A Quantum View, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Miller, D. and Mintzberg, H. (1983) 'The Case for Configura- tion', in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, pp: 57-73.

Milligan, G.W. and Cooper, M.C. (1985) 'An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set', Psychometrika 50(2): 159-1 79.

Noble, C.H. and Mokwa, M.P. (1999) 'Implementing marketing strategies: developing and testing a managerial theory', journal of Marketing 63(4): 57-73.

Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. (1997) The Differentiated Network: Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Ohmae, K. (1989) 'Managing in a borderless world', Harvard Business Review 67(3): 152-161.

Olusoga, S.A. (1993) 'Market concentration versus market diversification and internationalization: implications for MNE performance', International Marketing Review 10(2): 40-59.

Ozsomer, A. and Prussia, G.E. (2000) 'Competing perspectives in international marketing strategy: contingency and process models', Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 27-50.

Porter, M.E. (1986) 'Changing patterns of international competition', California Management Review 28(2): 9-40.

Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W. (1983) 'Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and suggestions for application', journal of Marketing Research 20(2): 134-148.

Quelch, J.A. and Hoff, E.J. (1986) 'Customizing global marketing', Harvard Business Review 64(3): 59-68.

Roberts, M.J. (2001) 'Developing a Teaching Case (Abridged)', Harvard Business School Note No. 9-901-055, Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.

Roostal, I. (1963) 'Standardization of advertising for Western Europe', Journal of Marketing 27(4): 15-20.

Roth, K. (1992) 'International configuration and coordination archetypes for medium-sized firms in global industries', Journal of International Business Studies 23(3): 533-549.


International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al "- 523

Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1992) 'Implementing global strategy: characteristics of global subsidiary mandates', Journal of International Business Studies 23(4): 715-735.

Roth, K., Schweiger, D.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1991) 'Global strategy implementation at the business unit level: operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms', journal of Inter- national Business Studies 22(3): 369-402.

Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) 'Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises', Strategic Manage- ment Journal 22(3): 237-250.

Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.M. and Teece, D.J. (1994) Funda- mental Issues in Strategy, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Rutenberg, D.P. (1982) Multinational Management, Little, Brown & Company: Boston, MA.

Samiee, S. and Roth, K. (1992) 'The influence of global marketing standardization on performance', Journal of Market- ing 56(2): 1-17.

Sarle, W.S. (1983) SAS Technical Report A-108: The Cubic Clustering Criterion, SAS Institute: Cary, NC.

Sheth, J.N. (1986) 'Global markets or global competition?' Journal of Consumer Marketing 3(2): 9-11.

Solberg, C.A. (2000) 'Standardization or adaptation of the international marketing mix: the role of the local subsidiary/representative', Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 78-98.

Sorenson, R.Z. and Wiechmann, U.E. (1975) 'How multi- nationals view marketing standardization', Harvard Business Review 53(3): 38-167.

Szymanski, D.M., Bharadwaj, S.G. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1993) 'Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: an empirical investigation', Journal of Marketing 57(4): 1-17.

Theodosiou, M. and Leonidou, L.C. (2003) 'Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: an integrative assessment of the empirical research', International Business Review 12(2): 141-171.

Vorhies, D.W. and Morgan, N.A. (2003) 'A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance', Journal of Marketing 67(1): 100-115.

Walker, O.C. and Ruekert, R.W. (1987) 'Marketing's role in the implementation of business strategies: a critical review and conceptual framework', Journal of Marketing 51(3): 15-33.

White, R.E. and Poynter, T.A. (1984) 'Strategies for foreign- owned subsidiaries in Canada', Business Quarterly 49(2): 59-69.

Wiechmann, U.E. and Pringle, L.G. (1979) 'Problems that plague multinational marketers', Harvard Business Review 57(4): 118-124.

Wind, Y. (1986) 'The myth of globalization', Journal of Consumer Marketing 3(2): 23-26.

Woo, C.Y.Y. and Cooper, A.C. (1981) 'Strategies of effective low share businesses', Strategic Management Journal 2(3): 301-318.

Yip, G.S. (1989) 'Global strategy... in a world of nations?' Sloan Management Review 31(1): 29-41.

Zou, S. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2002) 'The GMS: a broad conceptualization of global marketing strategy and its effect on firm performance', Journal of Marketing 66(4): 40-56.

Zou, S., Andrus, D.M. and Norvell, D.W. (1997) 'Standardiza- tion of marketing strategy by firms from a developing country', International Marketing Review 14(2): 107-123.

About the authors Lewis Lim is a doctoral candidate in Marketing at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, and Senior Tutor of Marketing and International Business at the Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Techno-

logical University, Singapore. His research focuses on strategy configurations and capability-building practices that explain firm performance variations.

Frank Acito (PhD, SUNY Buffalo) is Professor of Marketing and Associate Dean for Academic Pro- grams at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. His research focuses on the assessment and implementation of marketing research tools and techniques and on marketing strategy. His research has appeared in the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of Marketing, and other publications.

Alexander Rusetski is a doctoral candidate in Marketing at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University and a Lecturer of Marketing at the School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto. His research focuses on managerial decision-making, brand management, and marketing strategy, including international marketing strategy.

Appendix A: Case qualification checklist

* Is this case concerned with the marketing strategy of a company operating in an international environment?

* Does the case feature at least one identifiable business unit/level for which a single, distinct set of international marketing strategy is formulated and executed?

* Is this case more about the featured business unit's overall international marketing strategy than about its marketing strategy for specific country markets?

* Is the case devoted more to describing the featured business unit's international marketing strategy than to analyzing a particular marketing event or decision?

* Does the case describe, in a comprehensive and detailed manner, the various aspects of the featured company's international marketing strategy? o Standardization-adaptation dimensions o Concentration-dispersion dimensions o Integration-independence dimensions

* Does the case writer describe the details of the case vividly enough to enable quantification of the featured company's international marketing strategy?

* Has the strategy described in the case been actually implemented for a reasonable period of time (as opposed to being in the planning stage or being a transition strategy)?



Evaluation

* This case is definitely suitable for our project; very few items cannot be coded.

* This case may be suitable, although a handful of items cannot be coded; second opinion to be sought.

* This case is definitely not suitable; drop it from the sample.

Appendix B: International marketing strategy case coding scheme

Please rate the international marketing strategy of the company featured 9.DISTRIBUTION AND LOGISTICS PLANNING in the case along each of the following dimensions. If you cannot provide Each country office is Distribution and logistics a rating for an item, check the box "No information on this item." responsible for itsown - - - - - - - - - planning activities are

distributionandlogistics 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 consolidate globally at a planning single location

A. Standardization-Adaptation of Marketing Mix Elements Referencepage(s)aragraphs(: Noinformationonthisitem

1. BRAND NAME 10. AFTER-SALE SERVICE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT A different brand name, The exact same brand Each country office is After-sale service and

includinglogoisadoptedin 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 name, including the logo, is responsible for its own technical support activities each market used in all markets after-sale service and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 are consolidated globally at

technical support a single location Reference poge(sa)paragraphs ():_ Ljo information on this iten

Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): [ No information on this item

2. PRODUCT DESIGN 11. ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION PLANNING For each market, the The exact same product Each country office is Advertising and

product is designed to meet specifications, including responsible for its own promotional planning thelocalneedsand 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 physicaldimensions, are advertisingand 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 acti-ities are consolidated

preferences used in all markets promotional planning globally ata single location

Referencepage(s)/paragraphss): LNo information ton his itm Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): Noinformation on this item

3. PRODUCT PACKAGING 12. MARKETING RESEARCH

Theproduct packaging and The exactsameproduct

labelng are customized for packaging, including the Each country office is Marketing research each market

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 labeling,isusedinall responsibleforitsown 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 activities are consolidated markets marketing research globally at a single location

Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): LNe information on this item Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): No information on this item

4. ADVERTISING THEME C. Integration-Independence of Competitive Actions A localized advertising The exact same advertising template and theme,is 2 3 4 5 6-7 8 9 to stylemessae, and format created for each market is used obaly formt 13. MARKETING PLANNING AND COMPETITIVE DECISION

MAKING Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s) No infomation on this ite Each country office Marketing planning and

formulates its own competitive decision

marketing plan and makes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 making are tightly 5. SALES PROMOTION TACTICS its own competitive coordinated across all

decisions markets A different mix of sales The exact same sales Referencepage(s)/paragraphs(s): U No information on this item

promotion tools is used in 0 1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 10 promotion tools and tactics each market am used globally

Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s):

o information on this ite 14. CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION OF COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGNS Each country office is Each country market is treated as a standalone assigned a specific

6. CHANNEL DESIGN profit center, i.e., as apart 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 competitive role

t and

of a collection of profits from one market

The channel structure and The exact same channel independent subsidiaries used to finance the for each strucure and system are whose performances are competitive campaigns in

ymarkem niqu e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ctandsystemsepartey eluated other markets

market used in all markets Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): L No

information on this item

Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): UNo information on this item

15. COMPETITIVE RESPONSE INTEGRATION

7. PRICING Competitive battles are Thcompetitive battles

on a Price levels are determined The same price position, fought locally in each competitiveb attles on a

ertirely according to local relative to key global country market and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tobalscalepond to copetitors competitive situation and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 competitors, is maintained country managers do not attacksin one market by

subsidiary goals across all markets meddle with the affairs of counterattacking in another other countriescoua cket

Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): L3No information on thisiitem

market Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s):.

Li No information on thisitem

B. Concentration-Dispersion of Marketing Value Chain Activities 16. COMMUNICATION AND MUTUAL CONSULTATION

Different country managers Country managers 8. PRODUCT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT do not communicate and frequently communicate

Each country office is Product design and share information with one 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and share information with

responsible for its own development activities are another about how they one another so as to

product design and new 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 consolidated globally at a deal with competition coordinate their product development single location competitive actions

Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): No information on this item Reference page(s)/paragraphs(s): i No information on this item

Accepted by G. Tomas M. Hult, Departmental Editor, 11 February 2005. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.


Documents

Lim and Acito