Of Brand Battles and Culture Wars

Conventional wisdom now has it that elite American brands will be in for hard times in international markets due to the war in Iraq and to the Bush administration's tough-guy approach at the U.N. With near daily reports of plans for consumer boycotts of U.S. brands, what's a multinational marketer to do?

Before we damn the decision to send troops to the Middle East as a reason for a global drop in sales of U.S.-created brands, a look beyond the knee-jerk reaction will suggest that brands are far more entrenched and resilient than current comment would suggest, and that they are not likely to find themselves without local customers any time soon.

Global brands have achieved their status not by virtue of gift or government dictate. They've fought it out in the rough and tumble of free markets, and they have succeeded because they learned how to deliver what local people want, and they continue to do so better, cheaper, faster and/or more conveniently than others.

The reason people drink Coca-Cola isn't because it represents the USA. Indeed, anyone who has traveled to countries with non-Latin alphabets marvels at the way Coke manages to transform its iconic product, packaging and advertising to look like it comes from that very place. And, Coke has been presenting itself as a global brand since at least before the 1970s' worldwide hit, "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing." People drink Coke because it fills a consumer need, perceived or real, regardless of any vague or explicit American heritage.

Even before the war, a little European beverage start-up had received lots of attention for its introduction of Mecca Cola in Europe. The almost sure-to-fail soft drink is targeted at angry Muslims eager to send a message to the West (where they now live) by reaching for a thirst quencher that cleverly exploits the name of the holiest city in Islam, without offering a credible threat to Coke.

Thus, war or no war, those with a grievance with the U.S.—but with no alternative to products and practices born in the West—call for a boycott of some American brands under the cover of an admittedly unpopular war. In essence, they've gained a bigger stage to make the same pitch previously rejected by local consumers.

In fact, boycotts rarely work. No one organizes boycotts of mediocre products or services. There's no need to do so as efficient markets manage to kill those off. Consumer boycotts are, logically, only brought against best-of-breed items and, other than in an authoritarian regime, it takes uncommonly strong motivation and discipline to both change one's buying habits and to replace it with an arguably inferior substitute.

The word "boycott" is of relatively modern vintage, an eponym derived from a retired English army officer named Charles Boycott serving as a rent collector in Ireland in 1880. Locals attempted a rent reduction by urging tenants to refuse to pay rents or even to speak to the collector. Boycott's boycott did result in Boycott's ostracism, but not in a long-term rent rollback. The landlords had what the tenants wanted, and market forces set rents.

Obnoxious behavior, such as that displayed by the racist policies of bus companies in the deep South during the 1950s, made it easy for boycotters to organize against a public wrong. To the contrary, global brands are conspicuously respectful of local customs, traditions, tastes and needs. With a competitive advantage of global sourcing, product sophistication and shared marketing, they often tailor products and packaging for local markets.

They also—honorably or opportunistically—adopt home-grown causes, sports teams, cultural events and charities as their own. Because business has no ideology or agenda other than customer satisfaction, sales and profit, global marketers have no problem making any change local consumers will demand.

While individual global brands may rise or decline, what is most certain is that for the foreseeable future the dominant lifestyle pattern worldwide will be that which was born in the USA. Regardless of the name on the front of the box, the products will resemble those we use today, and, with the built-in lead the great American-derived brands enjoy around the world, it will take more than simmering dissatisfaction with U.S. government policies to bring down any major brand.

Seth M Siegel is co-founder of The Beanstalk Group, a global trademark licensing agency. Clients include Ford Motor, AT&T, Harley-Davidson and Mary-Kate & Ashley. He can be reached at sms@beanstalk.com.