Unilever and Nokia globalized their brands in India

Consider this example: A case in point is the success of global brands in the Indian
market. One of the booming economies in Asia, India offers tremendous opportunities to
global companies. A brief look at the Indian landscape would prove why – an estimated
1.2 million affluent households that is expanding at 20% a year. India has approximately
40 million middle income households with earnings of USD 20,000 to USD 45,000
adjusted for PPP, and they are growing at 10% a year. India has more than 110 million
households with earnings of USD 7,500 to US D 20,000 (adjusted for PPP), and more
than 70% of the population below the age of 36. It is no wonder then, that global brands
are making a bee line to the Indian market to grab a share of the growing pie.
This alluring face of the Indian business landscape has another facet to it and that is the
highly discerning and demanding customers. In spite of the booming economy and the
increasing disposable income, Indian consumers are very cautious and clear in their
priorities. Consumers are still not ready to splurge on branded goods at premium prices.
Additionally, there are a growing number of Indian brands that offer superior quality at
affordable prices. In such a scenario, global brands can win only if they attune themselves
to the local conditions.
Unilever is a classic example of a global brand which has pioneered serving the locals
with products that address the local sensitivities. Unilever’s Indian subsidiary Hindustan
Unilever Limited (HUL) has been the leader in recognizing the tremendous opportunity
lying at the bottom of the pyramid. They serve a customer base that aspires to consume
products but in smaller quantities and at lesser prices. HUL literally invented the
shampoo sachets – small plastic packets of shampoo for as less as INR 1 (USD 0.022).
This became such a rage among the rural consumers that many other brands started
offering products such as detergent, coffee and tea powder, coconut oil and tooth paste in
sachets. Even though the unit price was higher, rural consumers were able to afford to
purchase the smaller quantity at their convenience. It also illustrated that rural consumers
are eager and ready to seek global brands, and the benefits they provide in terms of
quality, value and emotional benefits.
Another example is of the mobile brand Nokia who once dominated the mobile phone
category before Apple and Samsung disrupted the industry. Nokia recognized the
growing importance of rural customers in the Indian mobile telephone market which
grew from a mere 300,000 subscribers in 1996 to a whopping 55 million subscribers in
2004. Nokia introduced its dust-resistant keypad, anti-slip grip and an inbuilt flash light.
These features, albeit small, appealed to a specific target of truck drivers initially and
then to a broader segment of rural consumers including farmers and local shop owners.
These features endeared Nokia to the Indian consumer as Nokia displayed a genuine
commitment in responding to local customer needs and adapting their products
accordingly.
Euro Disney’s example.
Disneyland launched the Euro Disney outside Paris and maintained its standard tried and
tested formula with the assumption that customers would seek the authentic Disney
experience. But shortly into the launch, Euro Disney was declared a failure. Of the many
reasons that were attributed to Euro Disney’s failure, the one that stood out clearly was
Euro Disney’s lack of localizing the brand experience. Euro Disney followed the brand
policies to the word – English-only instructions, no wine consumption on park grounds,
high ticket prices, and standardized merchandise and food items. This resulted in wide
spread dissatisfaction among the customers. But Euro Disney was just following the
golden rule of branding – consistency in its brand elements. Euro Disney later adapted to
consumer needs and cultural aspects, and finally became very successful.
These examples illustrate the consequences of culture on brands. In all the three
examples, the brands were global brands with operations in multiple markets. Nokia and
Unilever recognized the different customer needs and adopted the brand to the
preferences of customers. Disney on the other hand followed the classic branding rule of
maintaining consistency across markets. As can be seen from these examples, cultural
differences mandate that brands be sensitive to different cultural facets.
Further, these brand cases offer some very important points that should be fully
appreciated by any brand manager that aspires to be successful in cross cultural settings.
Cultural differences impact branding: Cultural differences are indeed a major factor
that has an impact on the success or failure of a brand. As brands enter different cultures,
it becomes imperative for them to carefully tread the standardization-customization
continuum wherein they not only manage to retain the inherent brand identity which is
the very reason for their acceptance across markets, but also adopt the brand elements
(images, advertising, channels, and others) to appeal to the local tastes and preference of
customers.
https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/branding/cross-cultural-branding-leadership/
https://knolskape.com/blog/top-10-change-management-examples-and-the-companies-
that-implemented-them/
 Globalization Versus Normative Policy: A Case Study on the Failure of the
Barbie Doll in the Indian Market
37 pages
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802793
 A souvenir slammed as 'white savior Barbie' has some Chinese adoptees
reconnecting
Years ago, Mattel partnered with a Chinese hotel — nicknamed the “White Stork Inn” —
to welcome adopting families with a limited-edition white Barbie holding an Asian baby.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/souvenir-slammed-white-savior-barbie-
chinese-adoptees-reconnecting-rcna96692
THE DARK SIDE OF INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION AND BARBIE’S PAST
INVOLVEMENT ( barbie in China)
https://adoptionland.org/13000/the-dark-side-of-international-adoption-and-barbies-past-
involvement/

“Barbie was born in Germany in the 1950s as an adult collector's item. Over the years,
Mattel transformed her from a doll that resembled a "German street walker," as she
originally appeared, into a glamorous, long-legged blonde. Barbie has been labeled both
the ideal American woman and a bimbo. She has survived attacks both psychic (from
feminists critical of her fictitious figure) and physical (more than 500 professional
makeovers). She remains a symbol of American girlhood, a public figure who graces the
aisles of toy stores throughout the country and beyond. With Barbie, Mattel created not
just a toy but a cultural icon.”4 In his often cited opinion on trademark law, Judge
Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals succinctly identified both the significance
and the tension embodied in the Barbie doll figure.5 Barbie leads in the world of young
females, with her vast wardrobe, her extensive life experiences, and her many diverse
friends. In a drive to capitalize on the growing phenomenon of globalization, Mattel
repackages Barbie in a variety of ethnicities. Making superficial ethnic and racial
modifications to the doll, such as adorning her unrealistic, sexualized physique in cultural
fashions, has been a largely successful marketing strategy for Mattel in many
international markets, winning the allegiances of little girls throughout the world. The
same strategy, however, utterly failed to capture the hearts, and the brand loyalty, of
young female consumers in India. Mattel no longer promotes the Barbie in India; rather,
the global company now mainly markets gender neutral products, like board games, to
the Indian market.6 Mattel‟s attempt to disguise Barbie‟s identity as a “symbol of
American girlhood” by shrouding her in localized