Branded by the Past

The global economy has made available a vast range of products to consumers from Boston to Beijing. And studies have long shown that buyers make purchase decisions about imported goods based on their perceptions of the general quality of products made in the country of origin. Thus “made in Japan” is now synonymous with high quality, particularly for electronics and automobiles, whereas “made in Bulgaria” retains the taint of association with Soviet-era production standards. But quality isn’t the only criterion consumers take into account when considering whether to buy an imported product. We recently conducted studies of more than 1,500 consumers in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, and discovered that past or current animosity between countries can significantly reduce the sales of one nation’s products in the other aggrieved nation. The sources of consumer enmity toward a particular country include ongoing political disputes and festering wounds left over from war. As an example of the former, consider how Australians and New Zealanders shunned French goods after France conducted nuclear tests in the South Pacific in the mid-1990s. An instance of the latter is the way memories of the Holocaust make it impossible for some Jews to consider purchasing German-made products. The kind of ill will we identified in our study is not the same as consumer ethnocentrism—the belief that purchasing any foreign-made products, not just those of some specific country, damages the domestic economy. (That kind of thinking is best summed up by the circa-1980 bumper sticker, “Hungry? Eat your import.”) The important thing about consumer animosity is that it is completely divorced from considerations of product quality. When residents of Belgrade avoid buying U.S.-made goods, they don’t do so because the products are shoddy, nor do Australians complain about French quality standards. Consumers avoid products from the offending country simply because of their anger over that country’s past or current actions. Consider how this plays out in Nanjing, China, where an estimated 300,000 civilians were killed by the Japanese in 1937. We found that the degree to which residents of that city remain angry at Japan is directly related to their unwillingness to buy Japanese goods. Those whose animosity toward Japan was high owned 51 % fewer Japanese-made radios, 44 % fewer stereos, and 30 % fewer televisions than those whose animosity was low. And yet Chinese consumers, regardless of their feelings about Japan’s past, generally admire the quality of Japanese goods. What does this mean for international marketing managers? Through no fault of their own, they may find that their products and brands fail to capture satisfactory shares of certain markets. As a start, managers should conduct studies that measure levels of animosity to their company’s home country in selected markets. If the results show a high degree of hostility toward the producer nation, managers must reconsider the way they sell their brand. They might, for example, create a new brand name that is not obviously associated with the producing country. Or they might form a partnership with a manufacturer in the target country whose brand name is viewed favorably by domestic consumers. Marketers in the global economy can’t focus myopically on traditional rules of branding, even when their products are superior. A country’s militaristic past can haunt companies for many years after the peace treaty has been signed, and a government’s current policies can upset the best-laid plans for penetrating new markets. That’s why marketing managers in the global economy can’t focus myopically on traditional rules of branding, even when their products are superior. They also need to remember the lessons of history.

Branded by the Past

Partner Center