With the recent financial troubles of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), I was thinking, what if they focused more on their international delivery service and began marketing to the rest of the world. Both Fedex and UPS (among others), do quite well on a global scale. The USPS has the knowledge to become a big competitor globally, as well as the domestic infrastructure which they could potentially translate to a global scale. The internet does not have to end the USPS! What do you think?

Full article on the financial woes of the USPS here:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/15/news/economy/postal_service_loss/index.htm?iid=EL

Vestas, a leading renewable energy company, has taken a new global strategy in promoting wind energy usage . . . and it’s using LinkedIn as its primary source. The company targeted 600 top executives of global brands, and using LinkedIn has engaged in one-on-one discussions to encourage global corporations to invest in wind energy. This campaign, which is the companies largest campaign ever, is hoping to convince companies that they are part of the climate change solution, and demonstrate the financial and brand-building benefits of investing in renewable energy.

In addition, Bloomberg Businessweek has partnered with Vestas, and has customized over 600 magazines to target each specific executive. Each magazine will contain a personalized letter from Ditlev Engel, the CEO of Vestas, and Morten Albaek, Senior Vice President. Simultaneously, select executives will receive a personalized InMail through LinkedIn, guiding them to customized websites.

As an individual who manages the LinkedIn profile of the president of a company, I will express that LinkedIn profiles, especially for executives at large companies, are not normally managed by that individual – but rather a social media or marketing individual. Only the “best-of-the-best” messages and invitations actually get relayed to the head of a company themselves. But this article shows how powerful social media is. I work for a business to business company (not business to consumer); therefore, LinkedIn is the most valuable social media site to me as a marketing professional (whereas Facebook and Twitter can be for B2C companies). Therefore, to create a global campaign that targets key executives in a cost-efficient way that minimizes travel and  in-person interaction time, using LinkedIn is probably one of the most effective, and dare I say brilliant, ways to accomplish this. This is fascinating.

To read the full article, visit here.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vestas-launches-one-of-a-kind-marketing-campaign-asking-600-top-executives-at-global-brands-to-promote-direct-investment-in-wind-2011-11-14-8000

I stumbled upon this great article on Lenovo (cited at the end of this blog post), which discusses the Chinese computer maker’s marketing strategies. If you haven’t heard of Lenovo, you will soon. They purchase the “Thinkpad” from IBM a few years ago and have been growing exponentially with the product since. The strategy the computer maker has implemented is, in my opinion, the “jam the product down your throat” strategy (I made that strategy term up, maybe I should copyright it?). While Apple and Microsoft stores are few and far between, in parts of China there are hundreds of stores in just one shopping area! Roughly a third of the computers sold in China are Lenovos, where it is by far the No. 1 seller of PCs. So how do they employ their global marketing strategy?

Non-Chinese talent is crucial to their marketing plans. “The brand is definitely the most important area,” says Yang, who oversaw Lenovo’s first-ever advertising effort; his team spelled out the company name in the office windows because they couldn’t afford a billboard.

At Lenovo, [the CEO's] challenge isn’t changing consumers’ perception of a brand. It’s introducing a brand and having it resonate. Last spring, for its first-ever global branding campaign, Lenovo selected Saatchi & Saatchi’s concept: “For Those Who Do.” The slogan brings to mind Nike’s “Just Do It.” Just as Nike emphasized what athletes could do in its shoes, [the CEO] says, Lenovo is spotlighting how people use its computers–”do machines,” in the campaign’s parlance.

What do you think of this global strategy? It seemed to work for Nike…

Article: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/161/lenovo?partner=gnews

Weight Watchers has been one of the stronger “diet” plans in the United States over the last 10+ years, and has shown to be successful in many individuals. Weight Watchers is more of a lifestyle, rather than a diet (as the Company would probably say), as it is meant to be a permanent change. As many people are aware, the United States has the biggest obesity problem in the world. This is one of the main reasons why a diet plan, for instance Weight Watchers, can be successful. But what about internationally? How would Weight Watchers market their lifestyle change to let’s say, Europe? Would it catch on? Would they need to adapt their marketing strategy to be as successful as they have been in the United States?

According to Weight Watchers’ most recent earnings release, the CEO recently was quoted with the following statement:

“As you may recall, unlike our marketing execution concurrent with the launch of our new programs in the US and UK, the CE marketing campaigns failed to entice newer members to join Weight Watchers in large numbers, something we hope to make progress on beginning in January 2012.

As an important side observation, we have seen the influence of the notable [Fat Diet] in France declined significantly in the back half of the year. We believe that we now have an opportunity to help the people in that country adopt a much more balanced and sensible approach to managing their food choices as they move away from this extreme diet.”

It appears that the CEO believes there is business to be gained by the knowledge sharing they can provide in France. Let me get your thoughts. If you were the Chief Marketing Officer at Weight Watchers, would you use a global marketing strategy whereby you would be attacking that European market in the same manner as the U.S. market or would you want to adapt the strategy?

In late October, Nokia revealed its plan to pursue a new “youthful” global marketing strategy that focuses on the tagline, “live adventure everywhere” for its debut launch of its Windows Phone devices.

Looking to reclaim its leading position at the top of the smartphone market, Nokia has decided to take a less traditional approach to its marketing efforts. How? By budgeting more to social media and digital marketing than to the traditional “above the line” campaigns.

The launch campaign for the company’s Lumia 800 and 710 is being backed by a marketing investment three times greater than any other Nokia launch in its history.

Nokia will be focusing on the practical uses of the phones, rather than the technical specifications. According to John Nichols, Nokia’s UK marketing director, “People will go ’wow, I can’t believe that’s Nokia’, the new campaign will make people surprised and delighted that Nokia is doing something this cool.”

To read more about Nokia’s youthful global marketing strategy, click here.

Source:

O’Reilly, Lara. “Nokia reveals “youthful” global marketing strategy.” Marketing Week. Centaur Media. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/telecoms-and-it/nokia-reveals-%E2%80%9Cyouthful%E2%80%9D-global-marketing-strategy/3031339.article>. 7 Nov. 2011.

I just finished reading a fascinating article titled, “Why Global Marketing Structure Must Follow Strategy,” by Marc de Swaan Arons and Frank van den Driest (2010). Fascinating.

This article discusses Sony Ericsson’s Lennard Hoornik’s plan to develop a new vision and role for the brand and global marketing. An excerpt from the article states:

We’ve studied all areas of global marketing. Our findings consistently show that organization, roles and responsibility, and global behaviors are without doubt one of the knottiest global marketing leadership challenges out there. Yet few global marketers have the stomach or energy to tackle the subject.

This article intrigued me because it doesn’t simply state that successful global marketing strategies include analyzing foreign markets, competition, cultural differences, and the other major elements that most articles discuss. Rather, this article discusses the importance of analyzing the internal structure of a company – the roles and responsibilities of employees, and the importance of approach and communication efficiencies.

The article states that global marketing leaders admit that they initially underestimated the importance of addressing their organization structure and processes . . . yet they rarely do anything to fix this problem.

For Samsung, Hoornik came in and analyzed the marketing objectives and global trends. From there, he shifted focus to reconnect personnel to the role of the marketing department, and made sure that role was fully understood. He then made sure that the marketing department reconnected with the company as a whole, as well as with its stakeholders. Once the department was reconnected, he knew that he had to prepare it for the growth of the new more global marketing organization. This meant a “redesign of the marketing organization, cutting overall headcount numbers, and making it ‘fit for purpose’ for the new strategy.”

By focusing on the internal structure of a marketing organization, a company can eliminate roadblocks, confusion, and duplication, and they can find new ways of working to enable the brand vision to be translated into reality.

This is the first time I have heard about developing a global strategy and tailoring the structure of your department to meet the needs of that strategy. Normally, a strategy is tailored to meet the needs of the department. This seems, to me at least, to be brilliant. If you have a global marketing strategy with extreme potential, maybe the best way to be successful is to tailor yourself to meet that strategy? Not to tailor the strategy itself . . .

Gap Hong Kong Store Opening November 2011

Gap, Inc. (“Gap” or “the Company”) released an announcement detailing its plans to build upon the current momentum of its international growth strategy. Gap reaffirmed its goal of growing total sales outside of North America and online to about 30% by the end of its fiscal 2013. Moreover, the Company plans to bring the first store of its Old Navy brand outside of North America to Japan within the next 1-2 years, and plans to “nearly triple” the number of Gap stores in China from 15 to about 45 by the end of 2012.
So, what is Gap’s marketing strategy when entering new markets such as Japan and China? According to the press release, Gap typically enters the new market with brand-building “flagship” stores, followed by outlets and other smaller stores in outlying areas. Once these stores pick up, the Company may decide to apply a franchise model to increase expansion in the regions. Personally, I think this model is solid because it mitigates risk. By opening just a few flagship stores early on, you sort of test the waters of the market without having a huge investment. If the flagship stores fail, the Company can reassess its decision to fully commit to entering that particular international market.
What are your thoughts on this strategy? Is Gap being too cautious by slowly entering these markets at first or are they pacing themselves appropriately given the risk?

Each year, a report is put out stating the top global brands of the year. After reviewing this year’s list, I wanted to review the past few years and see how the global arena has changed, if at all.

Please find the lists of the Top 10 Global Brands from 2008 – 2011 below:

Top 10 Global Brands of 2008 (source: http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/global_brand_2008.html):

1. Coca-Cola
2. IBM
3. Microsoft
4. GE
5. Nokia
6. Toyota
7. Intel
8. McDonald’s
9. Disney
10. Google

Top 10 Global Brands of 2009 (source:http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/best_global_brands_2009.html):

1. Coca-Cola
2. IBM
3. Microsoft
4. GE
5. Nokia
6. McDonald’s
7. Google
8. Toyota
9. Intel
10. Disney

Top Global Brands of 2010 (source: http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/Best-Global-Brands-2010.aspx):

1. Coca-Cola
2. IBM
3. Microsoft
4. Google
5. GE
6. McDonald’s
7. Intel
8. Nokia
9. Disney
10. HP

Top Global Brands of 2011 (source: http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-brands-2011.aspx):

1. Coca-Cola
2. IBM
3. Microsoft
4. Google
5. GE
6. McDonald’s
7. Intel
8. Apple
9. Disney
10. HP

I don’t think anyone is surprised that Coca-Cola, IBM, and Microsoft have held strong in the top 3 spots each year. Coca-Cola has dominated with its, “think local, act local” approach to marketing. Coca-Cola wants to provide consumers with beverages to fit their different life styles and life stages. As so eloquently stated by CEO Douglas Daft,  “In the past Coke succeeded as it appealed to global commonalties. In the future there is a need to understand and appeal to local differences.”

IBM, also thinking local, acting local, built a strategy and training that gave sales personnel knowledge as to how they will speak with their customers in their specific country in a way that is relevant to the customers of that country. According to Ivy Cohen’s Marketing Coach Article, “All IBM local market organizations  have the ability to create their own sales and public relations communications if they choose, provided they meet three criteria: They 1) look like, 2) sound like, 3) perform like … IBM.”

But the companies in these lists that are most interesting are Google, Nokia, and Toyota.

In 2008, Google entered the Top 10 at the number 10 spot. But the next year, it was able to jump to 7, and then to 4 – where it has held strong for the past 2 years.

Nokia, on the other hand, had the opposite effect. In 2008 and 2009, Nokia held strong at number 5, but in 2010 dropped to 8, and fell out of the Top 10 in 2011. Also, Toyota, a once very strong global brand, fell drastically going from 6th in 2008, to 8th in 2009, to out of the Top 10 by 2010.

One can only assume that Toyota’s downfall had to do with the large PR problems the company faced in 2010 from recalls, safety problems, hearings, and investigations. . . but Did Google become so successful because it had a great global marketing strategy? Or simply because it made the right business choices, focused on user experiences, made good choices regarding mergers and acquisitions, etc.? Or were those all part of their global strategy?

What about Nokia? Did it lose ground because it failed to have a successful global marketing strategy? Or could it just not compete with the surge of other successful mobile phone manufacturers, android technology, and Apple?

What do you think?

Additional Sources:

http://www.ivycohen.com/MarketingCoach/StrategyGlobalBrandingatIBM.html

http://nishu.articlesbase.com/international-marketing-articles/marketing-strategy-for-coca-cola-3224008.html

Image: Chevrolet vehicle in China

I believe the general consensus today in the U.S. about GM is not nearly as positive as it was maybe 20-30 years ago.  Today, at least when I think of GM, I think of a vehicle that is not as reliable as its Japanese counterparts.  More specifically, in regards to the Buick brand of GM, I think that most of us would agree that this is a model that you must be at least 65 years or older to drive.  The Buick does not appeal to the younger generation at all.  In fact, I believe both of my late grandfathers drove GMs; one had a Cadillac sedan and the other a “boat” of a Buick.  I can’t imagine yuppy guys hanging out at the bar after work, having some Ketel One straight out of the glass (have you seen that commercial?) discussing how cool they are in their new Buick Regals.  These scenarios are more reserved for BMW and Mercedes-Benz vehicle owners.

On one of my many trips to China, I noticed that almost every Expat and big businessman that I came in contact with owned a Buick. These are the type of guys that have personal drivers and are very well-off in China. I found myself snickering a bit under my breath when I saw the President of my Company’s China Operations get into his Buick after our dinner meeting.  Why is it that GM and its seemingly dying models are doing so well in China?  Is GM employing the same marketing strategy there that it is in the United States?  If so, why is it working in China and not here in the U.S.?

After some research, I noted that General Motors actually sold more cars and trucks in China last year than it did in the U.S., for the first time in the company’s 102-year history.  Further, GM expects its sales growth to continue, and industry analysts say it may dethrone Toyota as the global sales leader this year.  Unbelievable right?  From our standpoint in the U.S., would you ever have thought that to be the case? One of the reasons for this success might be the localized marketing strategy that GM has by offering a much different product line in China than in the U.S.  For example, although in 2011 GM offered 39 different models in China versus 46 different models in the U.S., of those models GM China offered 10 Buicks versus only 4 Buicks in the U.S.  Could GM’s strategy to focus more on the Buick in China versus the U.S. have been a main success driver?

Finally, it appears GM is focusing its strategy on inland cities. One of its less expensive models, the Baojun 630, priced at between 62,800 and 73,800 yuan ($9,758-11,467), will target consumers in China’s second- and third-tier cities initially, GM said in
a statement.  GM followed up with stating that this particular new model will also be available in first-tier and fourth-tier cities gradually, it adding over 120 sales outlets for Baojun are now opening for business nationwide.While continuing to reap profits from pricier Buick and Cadillac models, GM has also been stepping up its presence in smaller, inland cities which are quickly replacing coastal cities as the major industry growth driver.  This strategy seems radically different from the U.S. strategy whereby GM has a huge presence in Detroit and has seemingly focused on larger areas with ads featuring Tiger Woods and the “imported from Detroit” marketing label.  Should GM consider “importing” its strategy from China for use in the U.S. instead?  I think some could argue that it should…

Sources:

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/gm-sales-china_n_812934.html

2. http://media.gm.com/media/cn/en/vehicles.brand_GM.html

3. http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/vehicles.html

4. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/us-gm-china-idUSTRE77818R20110809

For the first entry in this Global Marketing Strategy Blog, it seems suitable to simply address the topic of “Global Marketing Strategies” in a broad sense. Its definition, essentially, is “the practice of standardizing marketing activities on a global level.” It is understandable that companies would like to utilize the same marketing strategy across the globe in order to cut costs, increase campaign/brand effectiveness, increase competitive advantages, etc. – but is it actually even possible to fully globalize your marketing strategy? In my opinion, and from my personal experiences, that answer is, “No.”

A global marketing strategy that completely globalizes all marketing activities is not always desirable – and is definitely not always achievable. Countries have too many differences in cultural tastes and preferences, there are varying degrees of government regulation when it comes to marketing and advertising, and product uses are not necessarily the same from one country to the next. Therefore, I concluded that complete standardization of a marketing strategy is not achievable. Through researching this topic, though, I found that companies do something that makes a little more sense . . . they globalize their product strategy, and localize distribution and marketing communication.

I found a really interesting article from an MBA Knowledge Base Web site (http://www.mbaknol.com/international-business/global-marketing-strategies/) that discusses the various facets of Global Marketing Strategies. Though it discusses many different types of Global Marketing Strategies, I only want to discuss a few that I find to be useful, and logical, strategies to implement on a global level.

1. Integrated Global Marketing Strategy: Companies, such as Coca Cola, utilize this strategy, where most of elements of the marketing strategy, such as the communications strategy, pricing and distribution, segmentation, and positioning have been globalized. Certain elements are adapted/localized to meet cultural differences. This type of strategy is utilized by large, successful companies whose product(s) is/are used to fill, essentially, the same basic need.
2. Global Product Strategy: Companies that utilize a global product strategy have essentially globalized their product offering. This means that key aspects – such as product use conditions, expected features, and required product functions – are mostly identical so that few variations or changes are needed.
3. Composite Global Marketing Strategy: In this strategy, companies implement several generic global strategies and run them in parallel. This means that a company might follow a global branding strategy while simultaneously running local brands in certain areas.

To this day, multinational companies are still trying to determine whether a marketing strategy is best globalized, regionalized, or localized. Localized and regionalized strategies can create brand identity issues, while globalized strategies limit creativity and can cause complacency. I personally think that localized and regionalized strategies alone are outdated. A multinational company MUST have a global strategy, but it cannot be completely standardized. Room must be left for regional and local adaptations. Marketing, in general, is something that I do not believe can be standardized. It must always be adaptable and customizable in order to meet consumer and market demand.