Development of archetypes of international marketing · PDF fileDevelopment of archetypes of...

Development of archetypes of international

marketing strategy

Lewis KS Lim1,2, Frank Acito1

and Alexander Rusetski1,3

1Kelley School of Business, Indiana University,

Bloomington, Indiana, USA; 2Nanyang BusinessSchool, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore; 3School of Administrative Studies,

York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence: Lewis Lim, Division ofMarketing and International Business,Nanyang Business School, NanyangTechnological University, S3-B2C-95Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 679798,Singapore.Tel: þ65 6790 4095;Fax: þ65 6791 3697;E-mail: [email protected]

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

AbstractThe extant business literature contains three separate characterizations of

international marketing strategy: standardization–adaptation, concentration–

dispersion, and integration–independence. These characterizations have, fordecades, 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 gestaltcombinatorial 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, wherebystrategies 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.

doi:10.1057/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 interesty 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 tocharacterize and classify the international marketing strategies ofmultinational firms (Buzzell, 1968; Keegan, 1969; Hovell andWalters, 1972; Ozsomer and Prussia, 2000). Of ultimate concernamong these scholars is the performance potential associated withany type of international marketing strategy. A more fundamentalgoal of classifying these strategies, though, is simply to helpresearchers, students, and practitioners in the field understand thedifferent strategic options a multinational firm might have instructuring its marketing approaches across country markets.

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

Journal of International Business Studies (2006) 37, 499–524& 2006 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 $30.00

www.jibs.net

Cavusgil, 2002). The most common characteriza-tion of international marketing strategy is along thestandardization–adaptation dimension (e.g., Jain,1989). From this perspective, international market-ing strategies are differentiated according to thedegree of standardization (vs adaptation) pursuedwith respect to one or more of the marketing mixelements (e.g., product, price, promotion). Thus, astandardization strategy is characterized by theapplication of uniform marketing mix elements(i.e., product design, pricing, distribution, etc.)across different national markets. Conversely, anadaptation strategy is characterized by the tailoringof marketing mix elements to the needs of eachmarket.

A second way of characterizing internationalmarketing strategy stems from the concentration–dispersion perspective (e.g., Roth, 1992). This per-spective, rooted in Porter’s (1986) analysis ofinternational competition and most recentlyreflected in Craig and Douglas’s (2000) theory ofconfigural advantage, is concerned more with thegeographic design of the international marketingorganization. The underlying premise of this per-spective is that a multinational firm should seek anoptimal geographic spread of its value-chain activ-ities such that synergies and comparative advan-tages across different locations can be maximallyexploited. International marketing strategies, then,are differentiated according to the extent to whichone or more aspects of the marketing value chainare consolidated or ‘concentrated’ at particulargeographic locations, vs being scattered or ‘dis-persed’ across various country markets.

A third characterization of international market-ing strategy is concerned with how competitivemarketing activities across country markets areorchestrated. This perspective, referred to here asthe integration–independence perspective, is heavilyinfluenced by the competitive ‘warfare’ descriptionof Hamel and Prahalad (1985). The key questionhere is whether a multinational firm treats itssubsidiary units as standalone profit centers (i.e.,independently), or as parts of a grander strategicdesign (i.e., as integrated units). Accordingly, inter-national marketing strategies should be differen-tiated according to the degree of consultation andintegrated action across markets, and the will-ingness to which a performance outcome in anyone market is sacrificed in order to support thecompetitive campaigns in other markets.

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

keting strategy. Specifically, as the standardization–adaptation characterization is concerned with thedegree of harmonization of the marketing mixelements, it captures the market offering aspect ofinternational marketing strategy. In comparison, asthe concentration–dispersion characterizationdeals with the geographical design of the marketingvalue chain, it captures the structural/organizationalaspect of international marketing strategy. Finally,as the integration–independence characterizationconcerns the planning, implementation, and con-trol elements of competing in a global marketplace,it captures the competitive process aspect of interna-tional marketing strategy. Together, these charac-terizations potentially provide rich descriptions ofthe ways in which a multinational firm can chooseto serve its customers, organize itself, and competein the international marketplace.

Unfortunately, the potential to richly describeholistic patterns of international marketing strate-gies does not appear to be completely facilitated byconceptual and methodological advances in thefield. Until very recently, scholars have relied onunidimensional schemes to discuss internationalmarketing strategies, and/or have discussed themfrom a single perspective. For example, Jain’s (1989)treatment of the construct ‘marketing programstandardization’ seems to be a general unidimen-sional one, with complete standardization on oneend of the pole and complete adaptation on theother.1 Likewise, Olusoga (1993) defines and mea-sures ‘market concentration’ mostly in generalterms: that is, without distinction among varyingdegrees of concentration for different value chainactivities. Consequently, one would suspect thatstudents and practitioners exposed to this literaturemight be, at best, equipped to think of interna-tional marketing strategies in terms of simplecategorical labels such as ‘standardized’, ‘adapted’,‘concentrated’, etc., without a deep understandingof what they imply at a holistic level.

The recent effort by Zou and Cavusgil (2002) tomodel the construct of international (global)marketing strategy represents a significant steptoward a truly multidimensional approach to thisconcept. Zou and Cavusgil (2002) propose asecond-order factor construct, termed the ‘GMS’,which overarches eight first-order dimensions ofglobal marketing strategy spanning the three broadcharacterizations.2 Thus any multinational firm’sglobal marketing strategy, with given degrees ofstandardization, concentration, and integration,can be captured by a single GMS score. However,

International marketing strategy archetypes Lewis KS Lim et al

500

Journal of International Business Studies

such a second-order factor construct, while provid-ing an aggregate measure of the degree of ‘global-ness’ of a multinational’s marketing strategy, is notmodeled to take into account possible interactionsamong the first-order strategy dimensions. Specifi-cally, by virtue of its linear approach, it is notdesigned to capture qualitatively distinct patterns ofstrategy made up of different combinations ofstrategy elements. This limitation is regrettablebecause the various strategy elements are likely tointeract and combine themselves into multidimen-sional ‘gestalts’ (Miller, 1981, 1986; Meyer et al.,1993).

All of the above problems point to the need for amore intricate, yet robust, method for describingand classifying international marketing strategies.To that end, we present a holistic and unifiedapproach to viewing international marketing strat-egy, an approach that is grounded in the config-urational theory of organizations (Miller, 1981,1986, 1996; Meyer et al., 1993), and which seesstrategies as multidimensional archetypes. Thisapproach not only takes into account the differentways in which any given international marketingstrategy can be characterized (i.e., in terms ofstandardization–adaptation, concentration–disper-sion, and integration–independence), but also con-siders the overall configurational pattern of thestrategy, in terms of its positions along the differentdimensions. Thus our approach offers significantadvantages over any single characterization ofinternational marketing strategy, or any singleaggregate score of the ‘globalness’ of marketingstrategy (Zou and Cavusgil, 2002).

To support our conceptualization, we report acase coding/clustering study in which we utilized ataxonomic procedure for uncovering several dis-tinct archetypes of international marketing strat-egy. Although the results cannot be taken asconclusive because of the exploratory nature ofour analysis, the presence of archetypes within alimited sample provides preliminary evidence forthe efficacy and theoretic value of the configura-tional approach.

Our proposed approach makes three fundamentalcontributions to the international marketing litera-ture. First, our notion of strategy archetypesarguably represents the first truly multidimensionalway of describing and classifying internationalmarketing strategies. By differentiating strategiesin terms of their relative proximities in multi-dimensional space, our approach provides a novelintegrative perspective on the various strategic

marketing options that can be or have beenpursued by multinational firms, and allows a moremeaningful comparative evaluation of interna-tional marketing strategies. Second, beyond identi-fying strategy archetypes per se, our approachprovides a starting point for inquiring into theirevolution as well as for a contingent analysis oftheir performance potential. By virtue of themultidimensionality in their configurational pat-terns, the archetypes contain rich informationabout the marketing behaviors of multinationalfirms and about factors that might contribute totheir effectiveness. This presents a valuable oppor-tunity to consolidate our knowledge of interna-tional marketing and international strategy. Third,our approach has pedagogic value. By demonstrat-ing the presence of archetypes of internationalmarketing strategies and discussing their contin-gent performance potential, we bring forth animportant set of ideas and a useful framework forfuture teaching of international marketing. Stu-dents and practitioners could then better appreciatethe multifaceted nature of international marketingwithout having to rely on unidimensional labels ordichotomies.

The next section of this paper reviews the field’spast efforts in characterizing and classifying inter-national marketing strategy, and reiterates the needfor a more robust approach to delineating strate-gies. We then introduce our proposed archetypeapproach and highlight its foundations in config-urational theory. Next, we illustrate the utility ofour approach by examining data from our casecoding study for the presence of archetypes. Basedon the findings, we explore the likely drivers ofarchetypes and potential archetype performancevariations.

The study of international marketingstrategy: toward a unified multidimensionalcharacterizationThe marketing literature has dealt with interna-tional advertising issues since at least the early1960s (e.g., Elinder, 1961; Roostal, 1963; Fatt,1964), but it was Buzzell (1968) who offered thefirst systematic discussion of standardization as atype of international marketing strategy. A standar-dization strategy was defined as the harmonizationof the various marketing mix elements (e.g.,product design, pricing, distribution, etc.) acrossdifferent country markets. Conversely, a localiza-tion or adaptation strategy would be the adoptionof a unique marketing mix in each market. Buzzell


501


(1968) provided several reasons for favoring astandardization policy, including cost savings, con-sistency in customer dealings, and the exploitationof a universal appeal, and urged multinationalexecutives to consider moving away from thethen-prevalent adaptation policy.

Following Buzzell (1968), the international mar-keting literature continued to debate the merits of astandardization strategy. Perhaps the most notableproponent of standardization was Levitt (1983),who argued that diminishing cultural differencesacross countries due to technological advance-ments necessitate a global (standardized) strategythat best captures worldwide economies of scale.Other supporters of this view included Rutenberg(1982), Henzler and Rall (1986), Jain (1989), andZou et al. (1997), who provided various argumentsrevolving around scale advantage and consistencyin marketing planning and actions. On the otherside of the debate were scholars such as Boddewynet al. (1986), Kotler (1986), Douglas and Wind(1987), Ohmae (1989), and Sheth (1986), whovariously pointed out the barriers to worldwidemarketing standardization, including governmen-tal and trade restrictions, inter-country differencesin marketing infrastructure, and local managementresistance.

The debate between standardization and adapta-tion remained largely unresolved through the1990s (see Theodosiou and Leonidou, 2003). Moresignificantly, perhaps because of the intensity andprominence of the debate, the literature in the1980s and 1990s began to treat standardization andadaptation as fixed alternative options in interna-tional marketing strategy. The titles of severalarticles published during this period (e.g., Samieeand Roth, 1992; Szymanski et al., 1993; Solberg,2000) suggested that the academic community hadcome to accept the concept of internationalmarketing strategy itself as falling along a singlecontinuum of standardization vs adaptation. More-over, several scholars had begun using unidimen-sional scales to measure variations of internationalmarketing strategies. For example, in a follow-upempirical study to Jain (1989), Samiee and Roth(1992) used a single index to measure globalmarketing standardization.

Yet a careful reading of the literature reveals thatthe state of knowledge was also evolving toward amultidimensional view of international marketingstrategy. As early as 1969, Keegan (1969) proposedlooking at the issue of standardization vs adapta-tion from both the product and promotion points

of view. He described four qualitatively differentstrategies, which could arise from crossing theproduct-standardization-versus-adaptation dimen-sion with the promotion-standardization-versus-adaptation dimension. In addition to these fourtypes of strategy, Hovell and Walters (1972) sug-gested including variations in terms of the othermarketing mix elements, such as distribution andpersonal selling approaches. In the empirical realm,Sorenson and Wiechmann (1975) found that multi-national firms vary their marketing approachesacross different country markets along as many as12 dimensions. Finally, Quelch and Hoff (1986)discussed partial vs full standardization as well aspartial vs full adaptation along more than 20dimensions of business functions, products, mar-keting mix elements, and countries.

Notwithstanding the momentum toward a multi-dimensional approach to describing and capturinginternational marketing strategies, the preponder-ance of studies until at least the mid-1980s hadreally focused only on the market offering aspect(i.e., the marketing mix) of international marketingstrategy. However, two streams of research were toemerge to give rise to two additional strategycharacterizations – description schemes based onthe structural/organizational and on the competi-tive process aspects of international marketing.

As identified by Zou and Cavusgil (2002), theconcentration–dispersion characterization of inter-national marketing strategy can be traced toPorter’s (1986) ‘design’ framework. The focus ofanalysis is on the structuring of value-chainactivities (e.g., R&D/product development, after-sale service, logistics and distribution) across inter-national locations. The measurement scale impliedby this perspective is in terms of geographic‘concentration’ vs ‘dispersion’ of each of thevalue-chain functions (Roth et al., 1991; Roth,1992). Porter (1986) argued that multinationalfirms should seek an optimal value-chain ‘config-uration’ such that scale and national comparativeadvantages are exploited, while balancing respon-siveness to local needs. More specific to themarketing area, Craig and Douglas (2000) expli-cated how the spatial configuration of marketingvalue-chain activities, made up of differentialconcentration–dispersion levels, could influencethe tightness of the operational interlinkages acrossmarkets and the development of border-spanninglearning and market-sensing capabilities. Theseoutcomes in turn determine the ‘configural’ advan-tage of the firm.


502


The other emerging characterization, the integra-tion–independence characterization, is groundedin the competitive ‘warfare’ description of Hameland Prahalad (1985). This perspective is concernedwith the extent to which a multinational firmorchestrates its competitive moves on an interna-tional basis and leverages its competitive positionin one market to achieve an advantage in othermarkets (e.g., by cross-subsidizing its competitivecampaigns across different countries). In otherwords, the key issue here is whether a multinationalfirm treats its subsidiaries as independent profitcenters or as an integrated group of business units.Hamel and Prahalad (1985) illustrate the latterbehavior with an example about Goodyear retaliat-ing against Michelin’s incursion into the US tiremarket by launching an attack in Michelin’s homebase, Europe, thereby tying up Michelin’s resourcesand restraining its ability to compete. Such actionsrequire close coordination among different countryoffices and compromises in country-level profit-ability. This perspective therefore implies thatinternational marketing strategy should be mea-sured in terms of the degree of integration incompetitive moves and decision-making, the inte-gration of competitive response, and cross-unitcommunication and mutual consultation (Houtet al., 1982; Yip, 1989).

Noting the diverse (three-fold) conceptualiza-tions of international marketing strategy, Zou andCavusgil (2002) made the first important attempt atthe turn of the century to unify the concept anddevelop a measure that reflects its multidimen-sional nature. They conceived of a second-orderfactor, labeled the ‘GMS’ (acronym for globalmarketing strategy), that incorporated eight first-order strategy sub-dimensions spanning standardi-zation–adaptation, concentration–dispersion, andintegration–independence (one of the dimensions,standardized price, was dropped during theirempirical analysis). With the GMS construct, theymade it possible to capture the overall ‘globalness’of a firm’s international marketing strategy using asingle score. The limitation of the GMS model,however, is that it is not able to detect thedominant combinatorial patterns in the data,patterns that would reveal the true multidimen-sional character of international marketing strate-gies. Furthermore, to use the GMS score alone toaccount for variations in multinational firm per-formance may prove causally ambiguous, as severalqualitatively distinct patterns of strategy couldtechnically share the same GMS score. For example,

Table 1 shows two somewhat distinct patterns ofinternational marketing strategy, represented byvariations along the first-order dimensions of theGMS model. Using the factor loadings reported inZou and Cavusgil (2002) as weights, the overallGMS scores computed for the two strategies turnout to be exactly equal.

In summary, although the literature has begun toacknowledge the need to integrate and unify thevarious characterizations of international market-ing strategy in order to derive a rich description andclassification scheme, existing conceptual andmethodological advances have yet to completelyfacilitate this endeavor. In particular, progress hasyet to be made far beyond the use of unidimen-sional labels such as ‘standardized’, ‘adapted’, and‘concentrated’, or the use of aggregate scores ofglobalness, to describe international marketingstrategies. The field is still in need of a moresophisticated and robust method for delineatingpatterns and types of strategy.

Strategy archetypes: a configurationalapproachThe configurational theory of organizations (Miller,1981, 1986; Meyer et al., 1993) supplies the primarybasis for conceptualizing our proposed holisticapproach to viewing international marketing strat-egy. Configurational theory holds that organiza-tional effectiveness arises out of superiorcombinations of strategic and structural character-istics (Miller and Mintzberg, 1983; Doty et al., 1993;Ketchen et al., 1997). In keeping with the config-urational perspective, our approach is grounded inthe premise that any concept of strategy is inher-ently multidimensional, and that various elementsof strategy can interact or combine differently inmultidimensional 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 config-

urations (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 ele-ments that make up a ‘universe’ of internationalmarketing strategies. Thus, to richly describe inter-national marketing strategies, one must lookbeyond single strategy dimensions for modalcombinatorial patterns across multiple dimensions.


503


When patterns are distinctive and exemplary, theycan be called the archetypes of strategy. Whendiscovered, such archetypes may be representedusing graphical snake-like line profiles that chartdifferent degrees of standardization, concentration,and integration among themselves. However,unlike the line profiles used by Wind (1986) andDouglas and Wind (1987) to illustrate variations ofinternational marketing strategy, the archetypesconceived here are not arbitrary line drawings orstylized prototypes. There is an implied assertionthat archetypes are theoretically meaningful strate-gic forms that are at least viable and potentiallyhigh-performing, if not approaching the ‘ideal’types assumed by Doty et al. (1993) in their studyof configurations.

Miller (1981, 1986) offers three theoretical rea-sons for believing that only a few configurationalcombinations would dominate any given strategydomain. First, from a population ecology perspec-tive (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1977), the envir-onment tends to select out unviable, unsustainable,or otherwise uncompetitive strategies, thereby

leaving a limited number of superior strategicoptions. Second, borrowing from ‘gestalt’ principles(e.g., Kelly, 1955), organizations themselves tend tobe drawn toward configurations of strategy ele-ments that are internally harmonious and mutuallyreinforcing. Presumably, this could occur either as aresult of the organization’s own strategic choice(Child, 1972) or through industry mimetic actionsand normative pressures (DiMaggio and Powell,1983), Third, as suggested by studies of organiza-tional evolution (e.g., Miller and Friesen, 1984),organizational change often occurs either in smallincremental steps or in ‘quantum leaps’, implyingthat many hybrid forms are often avoided or leftunexplored. Consequently, even as the study ofstrategy moves onto a more complex, multidimen-sional plane, researchers need to deal with only alimited number of strategy configurations out ofnumerous technically possible combinations.

Implementing the configurational approach tothe study of international marketing strategywould involve three major steps. First, the specificdimensions that collectively define the concept of


504


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

Strategy dimension Firm 1a Firm 2a

GMS1: 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.

international marketing strategy should be identi-fied. This is in line with the recommendation ofKetchen et al. (1993), who find that configurationsderived from theory-based dimensions have greaterpredictive validity. As the literature accepts threetreatments of strategy – standardization–adaptation(capturing the market offering aspect), concentra-tion–dispersion (capturing the structural/organiza-tional aspect), and integration–independence(capturing the competitive process aspect) – thesethree broad groups of dimensions should be usedconcurrently to identify international marketingstrategy archetypes. Second, a procedure for select-ing a suitable sample of international marketingstrategies, to objectively quantify these strategies interms of the three sets of dimensions, and tostatistically detect and delineate combinatorialpatterns within the sample, should be performed.To demonstrate this procedure, we describe below astructured case coding/clustering methodologyused for uncovering strategy archetypes. Third,the derived archetypes should be meaningfullyinterpreted and analyzed for possible drivers andcontingent performance factors. To that end, weexamine the background characteristics of ouruncovered archetypes and look to the broaderinternational business literature to make predic-tions about their relative performance.

It should be noted that the approach outlinedabove is closer to the taxonomic approach espousedby McKelvey (1975) and Hambrick (1984), and usedby Miller and Friesen (1977, 1978, 1980), Woo andCooper (1981), and Hambrick and Schecter (1983)to empirically uncover configurational archetypesof organizational design or strategy. A taxonomicapproach is appropriate when extant theory doesnot yet permit an a priori identification of superiorstrategy configurations (Meyer et al., 1993). How-ever, in more mature domains, where typologies ofeffective configurations have already been devel-oped (e.g., the typology of Miles and Snow, 1978),researchers have been able to employ a typological or‘ideal profile’ approach to test hypotheses aboutcertain configurational ideal-types (e.g., Gresov,1989; Doty et al., 1993; Vorhies and Morgan,2003). Those hypotheses are concerned mostlywith 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 ofequifinality among configurations: that is, whetherdifferent configurations achieving varying forms offit can be equally effective (Gresov and Drazin,1997). In this paper, we primarily pursue a

taxonomic approach to develop international mar-keting strategy archetypes. Our subsequent explora-tion of contingent performance issues will,however, leave scope for the future use of thetypological approach.

Most importantly, our proposed approach servesto address current limitations in the characteriza-tion of international marketing strategy. First, ourapproach represents a significant advancementfrom the traditional unidimensional way of classi-fying strategies based on any of the standardiza-tion–adaptation, concentration–dispersion, orintegration–independence perspectives alone. Thearchetypes conceived here are multidimensional innature, and they encompass strategy elements fromall three perspectives. Second, our approach differsfrom Zou and Cavusgil’s (2002) second-order factormodel in that it permits the identification of gestaltpatterns resulting from different combinations ofstrategy dimensions, as opposed to a single aggre-gate measure of strategy ‘globalness’. Overall, ourapproach facilitates a more profound understand-ing of international marketing strategy in terms ofholistic combinatorial patterns.

Evidence of archetypes: an exploratory casecoding/clustering studyTo demonstrate the utility of our proposed config-urational approach, we undertook an exploratorycase coding/clustering study, which, we believe,was the first of its kind in international marketing.Our study consisted of two phases. Phase I involveda ‘case survey’ methodology (Larsson, 1993), alsoknown as the ‘structured case content analysis’method (Jauch et al., 1980), to quantify theinternational marketing strategies of firms featuredin a sample of published cases. We believe thatpublished cases are a useful source of data for ourresearch. Even though these cases are writtenmostly for teaching purposes, they contain factualand detailed information about the practices andstrategic designs of actual firms. Such information,having been gathered through tedious fieldwork, isextremely rich and not easily extracted throughquantitative surveys. Moreover, case writers nor-mally rely on multiple key informants and archivalrecords to construct the cases (Jauch et al., 1980).Much of the information contained in the caseswould have been cross-validated to the extentpossible (for prescriptions of case-writing practices,see Corey, 1998; Roberts, 2001). Compared withusing other forms of secondary data, such as annualreports, the use of cases also affords the advantage


505


of enabling measures of process variables, that is,variables dealing with the processes of strategyformulation and implementation. Such processesoften are not publicly observable but are central toat least one dimension of international marketingstrategy (the integration–independence dimen-sion). Finally, with cases, unlike with surveyrespondents, the data source (i.e., the case docu-ments themselves) resides permanently in ourpremises. It is always possible to return to thesource for clarification of item ratings and/or forexploration of additional items.

To overcome the problem of comparability acrosscases due to different units of analysis and differentcase types, we select only cases that describe, in areasonably detailed manner, the actual interna-tional marketing strategies of firms at the businessunit level at any given point in time. Moreprecisely, each case should:

(1) be concerned with the strategic marketing issuesof a firm operating in an international environ-ment;

(2) relate to an identifiable business unit for whicha single, distinct marketing strategy is formu-lated and executed;

(3) report the key aspects of the firm’s overallinternational marketing strategy (as opposedto being focused on a particular internationalmarketing event or decision, or a particularcountry strategy); and

(4) describe an actual, rather than a planned,international marketing strategy that has beenin implementation for a reasonable period oftime.

In accordance with these principles, we developed acase qualification checklist (see Appendix A) andstringently applied the criteria to our selection ofcases. Furthermore, for each case selected forcoding, we clearly specified the level of analysis atwhich the coder should interpret the internationalmarketing strategy of the featured firm (e.g.,company, product division, or brand level corre-sponding to a strategic business unit), as well as thegeographic scope of the firm’s international mar-keting strategy (e.g., worldwide or regional).

Our case selection process thus generated asample of exemplars of international marketingstrategies that existed at some point in time. Tothe extent that companies chosen to be featured inpublished cases are usually notable industry playerswith a certain level of financial stability andsolvency, it can be argued that they are at least

moderately successful adapters in population ecol-ogy terms (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Conse-quently, taxonomic archetypes found among thesecompanies would represent viable strategic forms.(This does not imply, however, that any of thesearchetypes is maximally effective. Archetype per-formance potential has to be examined in relationto contingent fit, a subject we shall address later inthis paper.)

The process of translating the qualitative descrip-tions in the case into quantitative measures wasfacilitated by a detailed coding scheme. Appendix Bshows the coding scheme that was used formeasuring the international marketing strategiesfeatured in our sample of cases. The coding schemecontained 16 scale items: seven measuring thestandardization–adaptation dimensions, five mea-suring the concentration–dispersion dimensions,and four measuring the integration–independencedimensions of the featured firm’s internationalmarketing strategy. Each scale item was an 11-pointbipolar scale with extreme descriptors at bothends.3 To ensure that the coders fully understoodthe meanings of the coding dimensions, we alsoprovided the coders with detailed definition cardsfor all of the coding scheme scale items and aninstruction booklet that they could refer to as theyundertook the coding task. Besides rating the scaleitems, a coder attending to a given case wasrequired to reference particular sections of the casethat contained information supporting his/herratings. In undertaking the assignment of numer-ical values along various dimensions based on casenarratives, the coder effectively replaced the role ofthe key informant (as in a typical survey) on behalfof the featured firm.

We recruited and trained two successive groups ofstudent assistants to serve as coders in our project.All coders were provided with a detailed instructionsheet, thoroughly briefed on the project require-ments, and taken through several practice examplesof item-coding procedures before being put on anindependent trial. After successfully completing thetrial and being debriefed on particular proceduralissues and techniques, the coders began a semester-long coding job. Each week, the coders wereassigned specific cases taken from our case pool.Every case was coded by two coders, who subse-quently met to compare their item ratings andresolve any discrepancies. We defined a discrepancyas a difference of more than two points on an11-point scale between the two coders’ ratings.Whenever there was a discrepancy, the coders


506


concerned had to discuss their respective reasonsfor the rating given, come to an agreementregarding the source of the difference (which wasusually due to differences in the interpretation ofthe text), and then voluntarily adjust their ratingsto within a two-point difference. Only in rareinstances were the coders unable to successfullyresolve a discrepant item. In those rare instances,we stepped in and arbitrated the differences byrecoding the items ourselves.

The above steps executed over an 8-month periodresulted in a coded case sample of about 80 cases.Many cases inevitably contained some items thatcould not be coded because of incomplete informa-tion in the case text. To reduce the number ofmissing values in our data set, we removed casesthat did not have at least 10 out of the 16 itemscoded. The resultant sample came to 51 cases. Withthis final sample, we executed Phase II of ourtaxonomic procedure.

Phase II of our procedure involved the prepara-tion and analysis of our data set. To prepare ourdata set for analysis, we first removed five items forwhich ratings were not given in more than 30% ofthe cases. For the remaining 11 items, we thenimputed all missing values with their respectiveitem means. We believed these two steps collec-tively helped us maintain the integrity of our data(by focusing only on commonly rated items withfewer missing values) while preserving our samplesize (by not having to perform listwise or pairwisedeletion).4

To statistically uncover archetypes of interna-tional marketing strategy from our data set, weutilized cluster analysis because of the technique’s‘unparalleled ability to classify a large number ofobservations along multiple variables’ (Ketchenand Shook, 1996, 453). Following Punj and Stew-art’s (1983) recommendation, we applied a two-stage procedure to cluster-analyze all 51 cases in thedata set along the 11 remaining dimensions. In thefirst stage, the sample was subjected to hierarchicalclustering via Ward’s method, which generallyproduces clusters whose centroids differ maximallybased on minimum within-cluster variance. At thispoint, we relied on multiple criteria as suggested byMilligan and Cooper (1985) and Ketchen andShook (1996) to determine the appropriate numberof clusters in our data set. Based on an inspection ofthe dendrogram (see Figure 1) and an evaluation ofthe pseudo-F, the cubic clustering criterion (CCC),and the agglomeration distance-change statistics(see Table 2), either a two- or a three-cluster

solution seemed acceptable. For example, fromthe dendrogram, we noted three relatively densebranches, indicating the presence of three ‘natural’clusters (Ketchen and Shook, 1996). On the otherhand, the statistics favored a two-cluster solution,with peak values of the pseudo-F, the CCC, and theagglomeration distance-change found at two(followed by three) clusters. In deciding between atwo- and a three-cluster solution, we thereforeconsidered the interpretability and meaningfulnessof each solution (Hair et al., 1998). A two-clustersolution gave very little information, distinguish-ing clusters as merely high or low along alldimensions. Such a pattern also implied a high


507


Figure 1 Dendrogram from hierarchical clustering procedure

via Ward’s method.

correlation among all clustering variables, whichwe knew was not true. In contrast, a three-clustersolution appeared to offer richer insights into thepossible ways various dimensions of internationalmarketing strategy could be combined, therebyilluminating subtler configurational patterns.5 Forthese reasons, we chose a three-cluster solution.Next, in the second stage of the clustering proce-dure, the centroid values from the hierarchicalclusters were used as seeds in an iterative K-meansalgorithm to recluster the observations into exactlythree clusters. This was to ensure reliable clustergroupings (Punj and Stewart, 1983; Ketchen andShook, 1996). The final group assignments andcentroid values are shown in Table 3.

The three clusters now represent three interna-tional marketing strategy archetypes. To interpretthe clusters, we rely on plots of the centroid values

(see Figure 2). We complement our analysis of theseplots with what we call ‘pseudo-t’ statistics (see alsoTable 3), each calculated as the absolute value of theratio of the difference between each pair of centroidvalues along each dimension to the estimatedstandard error of this difference (cf. Lattin et al.,2003). Larger values of the pseudo-t indicate largerdifferences in centroid values with tighter distribu-tions.6

Archetype AThis archetype follows a comparatively morestandardized market offering policy. Companiesgrouped under this archetype display, on average,higher degrees of standardization in productdesign, advertising theme, and pricing as comparedwith the other archetypes (tX2.584). On thedimensions of brand name and sales promotiontactics, this archetype is also arguably more stan-dardized than at least one other archetype(tX3.346). Only on the dimension of channeldesign is this archetype not evidently the moststandardized (average item rating: 5.8). However,this archetype adopts a more concentrated market-ing value chain design, in terms of its productdesign and development (tX2.349) and advertisingand promotional planning functions (tX3.716). Itslogistics and distribution planning function is alsomore concentrated than that of at least one otherarchetype (t¼4.391). Moreover, this archetypeappears to be more integrated in its competitiveprocess in terms of competitive decision-making(tX4.655). On the dimension of communicationand mutual consultation across country units, thisarchetype is evidently more integrated than oneother archetype (t¼3.294). In view of its greaterdegree of standardization, concentration, and inte-gration, we label this archetype the Global Market-ers. The case that is most representative of thisarchetype, based on the least sum of squareddeviations from the cluster centroid, is GodivaEurope (Lambin, 2004), a producer of premiumchocolates. At the time of writing, Godiva’s inter-national marketing strategy typified what manyscholars would regard as a global or near-globalstrategy. The following quotes from the caseillustrate the relatively more standardized marketoffering policy, especially in the areas of productdesign and advertising theme (average item ratingsof 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


508


Table 2 Pseudo-F, cubic clustering criterion (CCC), and agglom-

eration 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

distance-changea

644.48 280.00 201.18 168.92

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 tothe mean sum of squares within group (Lattin et al., 2003: 291). Thevalue reported is obtained from SAS PROC FASTCLUS and is calculated as

Pseudo-F ¼ ðT � PGÞ=ðG � 1ÞPG=ðn � GÞ

where G is the number of clusters, T is the total sum of squares, and PG isthe within-group sum of squares. Larger numbers of the pseudo-F usuallyindicate 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 thedistribution expected if data points were obtained from a uniformdistribution. The criterion is calculated as

CCC ¼ ln1 � EðR2Þ

1 � R2

� ��K

where E(R2) is the expected R2, R2 is the observed R2, and K is thevariance-stabilizing transformation (see Sarle, 1983). Larger positivevalues of the CCC indicate a better solution, as it shows a largerdifference from a uniform (no clusters) distribution. However, the CCCmay be incorrect if clustering variables are highly correlated.The agglomeration distance refers to the distance between clusters beingmerged in each step. A larger distance indicates highly dissimilar clustersbeing joined, suggesting that not joining them will preserve the naturalstructure of the data. As distance-always grows, it is convenient tocompare the incremental distance-changes, with a large changeindicating that an appropriate solution has been found at the numberof clusters prior to the change (Ketchen and Shook, 1996: 446).

countries, but sales by item are differenty 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 relativehigh geographical concentration of Godiva’s mar-keting value chain, notably the product design/development and the distribution/logistics plan-ning 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 tightworldwide (triadic) coordination in Godiva’s mar-keting planning and competitive decision-makingprocess (average item rating: 8.0).


509


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Differentbrand name

in each market

Samebrand namein each market

Productdesigned foreach market

Same productin eachmarket

Localized adtheme for

each market

Same advertisingin eachmarket

Different mix ofpromotion tools

in each market

Same salespromotion toolsin each market

Channel structureunique in

each market

Same channelstructure ineach market

Prices setaccording to situation

in each market

Same pricepositionin each market

Each countryresponsible for product

design and development

Product designand developmentin a single location

Each countryresponsible for logistics

and distribution

Distribution andlogistics consolidatedat a single location

Each countryresponsible for advertising

and promotion

Advertising and promotionplanning consolidatedat a single location

Each countryformulates

own marketing plan

Marketing planningtightly coordinatedacross all markets

Country managersdo not shareinformation

Country managersfrequently shareinformation

Infrastructure minimalists

Tactical Coordinators

Global Marketers

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

Inte

rnatio

nal

mark

etin

gstra

teg

yarc

hety

pes

Lew

isK

SLim

etal

51

0

Journ

alof

Inte

rnatio

nalBusin

ess

Stu

die

s

Table 3 Cluster assignments and centroid values

Case Publisher/source Case number Industry Strategy level Geographic

scope

Time period

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

goods

Ariel Ultra brand Europe Late 1980s

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 9B00A019 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 304-138-1 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

marketing

Gallo brand Worldwide Early 1990s

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

Inte

rnatio

nal

mark

etin

gstra

teg

yarc

hety

pes

Lew

isK

SLim

etal

51

1

Journ

al

of

Inte

rnatio

nalBusin

ess

Stu

die

s

Table 3 Continued

Case Publisher/source Case number Industry Strategy level Geographic

scope

Time period

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

Nestle 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)

n¼22

Cluster 2 (Archetype B)

n¼16

Cluster 3 (Archetype C)

n¼13

‘Pseudo-t’ statistics for describing differences among

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

(ST_ADTHEME)

6.67 1.87 3.80 1.71 4.65 1.79 4.856 3.202 1.273

Sales promotion tactics standardization

(ST_PROMO)

5.96 2.00 3.97 1.65 5.68 1.64 3.346 0.443 2.529

Channel design standardization

(ST_CHANNEL)

5.79 1.90 6.15 1.79 2.92 1.32 0.627 4.715 4.969

Pricing standardization (ST_PRICING) 6.45 2.13 4.21 2.41 4.28 2.80 2.843 2.584 0.081

Product design and development

concentration (CONC_PDM)

8.23 1.22 6.78 2.34 5.27 2.15 2.349 4.512 2.160

Logistics and distribution planning

concentration (CONC_LOGDIST)

6.51 2.23 5.45 2.31 3.18 1.87 1.496 4.391 2.798

Advertising and promotional planning

concentration (CONC_A&P)

7.79 2.27 4.43 2.28 4.80 2.37 4.449 3.716 0.434

Competitive decision-making integration

(INT_DECISION)

7.79 1.60 4.24 1.70 5.00 1.91 6.301 4.655 1.183

Archetype BIn contrast to the Global Marketers, this archetypepursues a rather mixed standardization policy forits market offering. While its brand name andchannel design elements are arguably more stan-dardized (similar to the Global Marketers), itsadvertising theme and sales promotion tactics arerelatively more localized as compared with at leastone other archetype (tX2.529). Along with Arche-type C below, its product design and pricingdimensions are also more localized than those ofthe Global Marketers (tX2.843). Similarly, itsadvertising and promotional planning function ismore geographically dispersed as compared withthe Global Marketers (t¼4.449). Nonetheless, itsproduct design/development and distribution/logistics planning functions are moderately con-centrated (average item ratings of 6.8 and 5.5,respectively, in between the other two archetypes).Compared with at least one other archetype, thisarchetype is also apparently less integrated in itscompetitive decision-making and communicationand mutual consultation (tX3.143). In view of itsselective approach of standardizing only the brandname and channel design with correspondingconcentration of product design/development anddistribution/logistics functions, we label this arche-type the Infrastructural Minimalists. Companiesclassified under this archetype appear to emphasizethe provision of global infrastructure to their localunits with otherwise minimal intervention in therespective local operations and decisions. A casethat is representative of this archetype, again basedon the least sum of squared deviations from thecluster centroid, is Gallo Rice (Laidler, 1998),featuring the Italian company F&P Gruppo, market-er of the Gallo brand of rice. According to the case,the Gallo brand name was used by the companyacross all country markets, resulting in a brandname standardization average rating of 9.0:

The Gallo brand name and Gallo rooster logo were used

consistently across geographic marketsy (p. 2).

However, the exact line of rice sold differed fromcountry to country (average product design stan-dardization rating: 3.0). Similarly, the communica-tion strategy differed somewhat across countrymarkets (average advertising theme and salespromotional tactics standardization ratings: 4.5and 5.5, respectively). Nonetheless, most sales weremade to retailers rather than to institutions (aver-age channel design standardization rating: 7.0). Butperhaps because of the nature of the product and

the fact that the company uses local subsidiariesand agents in different markets, the competitivedecision-making process across countries did notappear to be tightly coordinated (average itemrating: 3.0). On the other hand, production wasconcentrated in four countries – Italy, Germany,Argentina, and Uruguay – with apparently centrallycontrolled product design and development func-tion (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

packagingy A high percentage of the resulting profits

were, in turn, reinvested in research and development

(p. 1).

Archetype CLike the Infrastructural Minimalists, this archetypeadopts a mixed standardization policy, but in adifferent way. Although it is moderately standar-dized in the area of sales promotion tactics (averageitem rating: 5.7), its product design, advertisingtheme, pricing policy, and especially channeldesign are more localized as compared with at leastone other archetype (tX2.584). And, although itsaverage brand name standardization rating is notlow (at 6.1), this rating is comparatively lower thanthose of the other two archetypes (tX3.166). Itsmarketing value chain activities, especially theproduct design/development and distribution/logistics functions, are also more dispersed(tX2.160). Likewise, its advertising and promo-tional planning function is clearly more dispersedthan that of the Global Marketers (t¼3.716). Butperhaps how this archetype truly differs from theInfrastructural Minimalists is that it is compara-tively more integrated in its competitive process interms of communication and mutual consultation(t¼3.143), even while its competitive decision-making process does not appear to be particularlyintegrated. Because the emphasis of its interna-tional marketing strategy is in the coordination(namely, mutual consultation) of tactics (namely,sales promotion tactics) rather than in the standar-dization of tangible elements such as productdesigns and channel design, or in the concentra-tion of marketing functions, we label this archetypethe Tactical Coordinators. A case that is representa-tive of this pattern is AXA: The Global Insurance


512


Company (Goodman and Moreton, 1995). Likemany other multinational insurance firms, AXApursued a rather localized approach to marketingits products, owing to heavy local regulation ofinsurance 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 insurancey In addition, insurance

regulations often stipulated accounting methods and

reporting requirementsy 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 late1980s and early 1990s occurred mainly throughacquisitions, resulting in a complex holdingsstructure with multiple registered company namesin different countries. Hence the average standar-dization item ratings for product design, channeldesign, and pricing ranged from a low of 2.5 to 3.0.The concentration of marketing value-chain activ-ities was also apparently rather low (e.g., with anaverage distribution and logistics planning concen-tration rating of 3.0), presumably because of thelack of scale economies in sales and marketingactivities:

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 amoderate-to-high level of competitive process inte-gration, with average competitive decision-makingand communication/mutual consultation ratingsof 5.0 and 7.5, respectively. The following quoteillustrates 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

executivesy and five representatives of AXA’s major foreign

operationsy The company also began to put into place a

common MIS systemy to improve the quality and

comparability of information in the company (p. 13).

As a result, some of AXA’s sales promotional tacticscould have been well coordinated across country

markets (average sales promotional tactics standar-dization rating: 7.5).

In summary, each of the three derived archetypesexhibits a distinctive configuration of marketoffering, structural/organizational, and competitiveprocess. The configurations are somewhat complex,with no clear-cut correlations among the strategydimensions, which means that they would nothave been well captured using unidimensionalscales or an aggregate score alone.

To corroborate the above observation, we per-formed a descriptive canonical discriminant analy-sis based on the cluster groupings. Figure 3a showsthe positions of the various cases and theirrespective cluster centroids relative to two canoni-cal discriminant functions or axes. The horizontalaxis (Function 1), which discriminates the Global


513


-4 -2 0 2 4Function 1

-2

0

2

4

Fu

nct

ion

2

Cluster A

Cluster B

Cluster C

K-means clusterCluster ACluster BCluster CGroup Centroid

ST_BRAND

ST_DESIGN

ST_ADTHEME

ST_CHANNEL

ST_PRICING

CONC_PDM

CONC_A&P

INT_DECISIONINT_CONSULT

CONC_LOGDIST

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

a

b

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).

Marketers from the other two archetypes, is posi-tively related to all of the 11 strategy dimensionsused in the cluster analysis (see Figure 3b). Thisappears to be a broad-spectrum function thatbehaves like Zou and Cavusgil’s (2002) aggregateGMS factor. Cases rated collectively high on the 11dimensions would tend to be classified under theGlobal Marketers archetype. More interesting, how-ever, is the vertical axis (Function 2), which, unlikethe GMS factor, serves to further discriminatebetween the Infrastructural Minimalists (morepositive) and the Tactical Coordinators (morenegative). This function is positively related tobrand name standardization, channel design stan-dardization, product design and development con-centration, and distribution and logistics planningconcentration, all of which characterize the Infra-structural Minimalists archetype when highlyrated. This function is also negatively related tosales promotional tactics standardization and inte-gration of communication and mutual consulta-tion, both of which are characteristic of theTactical Coordinators archetype when highlyrated. Thus, when a firm’s strategy does notclearly belong to the Global Marketer archetype(with high values on all dimensions), it willfall under either the Infrastructural Minimalistsor Tactical Coordinator based upon the configura-tion of values it has on the determinants ofFunction 2.

Evolutionary drivers of archetypesHaving found evidence of the existence of threedistinct archetypes of international marketingstrategy, it is appropriate at this point to ask howthe archetypes came about: that is, whether theremight have been any common exogenous forcesimposed on firms belonging to each archetype,forces that have driven their similarity through oneor more of the evolutionary mechanisms describedby Miller (1981, 1986) – namely, environmentalselection, mimetic action, and firm strategicchoice. We tried to answer this question byreturning to the cases to look for commonalitieswithin clusters. In keeping with the configurationalthinking, we sought to identify holistic sets ofexogenous factors as drivers. Because of the quali-tative nature of this step, we were limited in ouranalytical precision. Yet we noted three interestingpatterns.

First, an inspection of the list of cases classified asthe Global Marketers reveals that many of thesebusinesses faced conditions favoring a global

approach to managing their marketing operations,such as minimal or diminishing cultural differencesin purchase and consumption behaviors, the lack ofor disappearing peculiar local regulations, scaleeconomies in marketing value-chain functions,and the presence of ‘global’ competitors thatrequired the shared attention of all subsidiarymanagers. Similar to the construct of ‘externalglobalizing conditions’ defined by Zou and Cavus-gil (2002), such conditions encourage, or evennecessitate, high levels of market offering standar-dization, value-chain concentration, and competi-tive process integration. For example, the SonyEuropa case (Kashani and Kassarjian, 1998)describes how Sony’s European unit was grapplingwith a set of market forces, including the increasingconsolidation of competitors and buyers. Alongwith the potential for greater cost savings fromstreamlining operations across markets and thedesire to unify the representation of regionalinterests, this led to the creation of a pan-Europeanmarketing organization (treated as a global market-ing strategy when the geographic scope of analysisis restricted to the region).

Second, an examination of the cases classified asthe Infrastructural Minimalists suggests that manyof these companies were involved in productbusinesses where consumer tastes and preferencesdiffered significantly across countries. Several foodcompanies fall into this cluster, including GalloRice, Ben & Jerry’s (an ice-cream producer), andNando’s (a fast-food chain), as do a couple ofbeauty/grooming products companies, namelyMary Kay and L’Oreal. In these businesses, theremight also be certain local regulations concerningthe production and sale of the product. Thus someof the advantages of standardizing the marketoffering might not be relevant to these firms.Furthermore, perhaps because of the need to dealwith local competitors, a worldwide coordinationof competitive processes might not be necessary.Nevertheless, there might still be substantial brandequity effects associated with these businesses, asdemonstrated in the Ben & Jerry’s case (Hagen,1999), where the company frequently used licen-sing mode to enter foreign markets. Also, therecould be established channel and distributionstrategies that have worked very well in theseindustries, as demonstrated by Mary Kay’s (Laidler,1996) frequent use of its direct selling method.These companies therefore could have found itadvantageous to provide a minimal brand andchannel infrastructure for their international mar-


514


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

Third, a look at the cases typifying the TacticalCoordinators points to the possibility that many ofthese companies not only did not experience anymarket forces that encouraged standardizing theirmarket offering in a major way, but also did not seesubstantial scale economies in consolidating anypart of their marketing value chains. The AXA casementioned earlier illustrates this possibility. None-theless, the similarity of competitive environments,including the presence of shared competitors acrosscountry markets, could have motivated thesecompanies to coordinate their competitive deci-sions and tactics on a worldwide scale. For example,several companies, such as Nestle, Euro RSCG, andICI Paints, faced global competitors even as theyoperated in local country environments. It mighttherefore have been critical for these companies tohave high degrees of communication and mutualconsultation as well as harmonization of competi-tive tactics across country units.

In summary, a combination of environmentalfactors and market forces appears to drive the typeof international marketing strategy adopted by anygiven multinational firm.

P1a: 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 econo-

mies in operating marketing value-chain activities, and the

presence of global competitors, is likely to engender a

strategy resembling the Global Marketers archetype.

P1b: 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.

P1c: 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 opera-

tions, but that at the same time encourages the coordina-

tion 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: subsidiarynetwork contingent fit considerationsAfter considering the possible drivers of the differ-ent international marketing strategy archetypes,the next question one might pose is: ‘Whicharchetype(s) is/are liable to lead to stronger multi-national firm performance?’7 This is an importantquestion because, arguably, the ultimate concernfor the study of any area of strategy is to explainfirm performance variations (Rumelt et al., 1994).(Here, of course, we take the position that perfor-mance variations among the archetypes are stilllikely, even though it has been stated earlier thateach of the archetypes is potentially high perform-ing.) However, this is also a difficult questionbecause the relationship between strategy andperformance is itself a complex issue. In particular,the implementation context within which a firmoperates may influence the effectiveness of anygiven strategy (Walker and Ruekert, 1987; Nobleand Mokwa, 1999). The implementation contextimposes peculiar constraints upon the firm, so firmperformance is partly a function of how unencum-bered the strategy is by those constraints. Animportant aspect of a multinational firm’s imple-mentation context is its network of internationalsubsidiaries,8 given that a significant proportion ofa multinational’s marketing activities is executed(whether or not planned) at the local subsidiarylevel (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995; Solberg,2000). Research suggests that subsidiary-level fac-tors have the potential to either help or hurt theeffective implementation of a multinational’sintended strategy (e.g., Wiechmann and Pringle,1979; Hulbert et al., 1980; Hewett and Bearden,2001). Therefore, in discussing the performancepotential of any international marketing strategyarchetype, the characteristics of the subsidiarynetwork need to be considered. In other words,rather than simply order the relative superiorityof the different archetypes, it is necessary toexamine the contingent fit (Doty et al., 1993)of each archetype with the subsidiary networkcharacteristics.

There are potentially several different subsidiarynetwork characteristics to be considered. Theseinclude the scope of subsidiary responsibilities,the level of autonomy held by each subsidiary,the degree of subsidiary dependence on the headoffice, and the degree of interdependence amongsubsidiaries. One way to incorporate the effect ofthese characteristics into the prediction of arche-type performance is to model each characteristic as


515


a moderator of the archetype–performance rela-tionship. Statistically, this involves analyzing theinteraction between each characteristic and thevarious strategy variables that make up an arche-type. This is referred to as the interaction approachto studying contingent fit (Drazin and Van de Ven,1985). However, as Miller (1981) and Meyer et al.(1993) point out, such a ‘reductionist’ approach isgenerally aimed at isolating the effects of singlecontingency variables, and often unrealisticallyassumes unidirectional linear relationships amongthe variables. From the perspective of configura-tional theory, this approach is not ideal for under-standing holistic combinatorial patterns of fitbetween multiple strategy variables and multiplecontingency factors. An alternative approach thatis more consistent with the configurational think-ing underlying this research is to identify config-urations of contextual variables that fit well withthe respective strategy archetypes. Like the arche-types, each of these contextual configurations is amultidimensional combination of distinct charac-teristics. This way, multiple subsidiary networkcharacteristics serving as contextual contingenciescan be simultaneously considered. Strategy arche-types and contextual contingencies that fit wellwith each other can be viewed as extended config-urations of mutually supportive elements, similarin spirit to Miller’s (1986) matching of compatibleconfigurations of strategy and structure. At thesame time, when there is a lack of unique one-to-one fit between strategy and context, equifinalitycan be said to exist.

While the lack of data prevents a fresh taxonomicdiscovery of common configurations of subsidiarynetwork characteristics along with an integratedtesting of fit with the strategy archetypes earlieruncovered, research on multinational subsidiarybehavior has previously identified three configura-tions of subsidiary roles and structural contexts(Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995). Becausethese ‘subsidiary roles’ and ‘structural context’variables appear to broadly describe the nature ofa multinational subsidiary network, the threeconfigurations can be used here to analyticallyexamine the contingent fit of the three uncoveredarchetypes.

The specialized contributorAs described by Birkinshaw and Morrison (1995),one type of subsidiary network is characterized byhigh levels of subsidiary expertise in specificfunctions or activities. Specifically, each subsidiary

has a wide geographic scope but a narrowfunctional scope of responsibilities. The degree ofstrategic autonomy held by each subsidiary ismoderate, and subsidiaries are highly dependenton the head office as well as on one another formaterials and resources. Because each subsidiarycontributes to the overall functioning of the multi-national in a specialized manner, this subsidiarynetwork type is labeled the ‘Specialized Contribu-tor’. In relation to previous literature, this type ofnetwork resembles Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1986)‘Contributor’, Jarillo and Martinez’s (1990) ‘Recep-tive’, and White and Poynter’s (1984) ‘RationalizedManufacturer’. Such a subsidiary network is likelyto impose constraints on the implementation ofeither an Infrastructural Minimalist or a TacticalCoordinator strategy archetype, because each sub-sidiary does not possess a full range of functional(marketing) expertise to effectively determine alocal mixed adaptation strategy, even though itpossesses moderate strategic autonomy. Moreover,the rationalized global design does not seem to becompatible with the relatively dispersed marketingvalue-chain structure of either of the two men-tioned strategy archetypes. On the other hand,this subsidiary network type seems to support aGlobal Marketer strategy, because (a) the widegeographic and narrow functional scope of sub-sidiary responsibilities facilitate the creation of astandardized market offering, (b) the activityspecialization design accommodates a concentratedmarketing value chain, and (c) the moderateautonomy and high interdependence among sub-sidiaries are conducive for achieving integration inthe competitive decision and marketing planningprocess.

The local implementerA second type of subsidiary network is character-ized by both limited geographic scope and lowstrategic autonomy assigned to each local subsidi-ary (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995). This type ofnetwork also exhibits a high degree of subsidiarydependence on the head office, as well as highinterdependence among subsidiaries for materialsand resources. Because each subsidiary is essentiallytasked to execute the strategy formulated by thehead office, such a subsidiary network is labeled the‘Local Implementer’. This type of network closelycorresponds to Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1986)‘Implementer’, D’Cruz’s (1986) ‘Branch Plant’, andWhite and Poynter’s (1984) ‘Miniature Replica’subsidiary types. Such a subsidiary network is


516


unlikely to facilitate a Global Marketer strategy,given the lack of activity specialization on aworldwide scale and the lack of strategic integra-tion across subsidiaries. Also, because the subsidi-aries’ marketing strategy formulation capabilitiesare likely to be limited (because of the historicallack of strategic autonomy), this subsidiary networktype seems incompatible with the Tactical Coordi-nator strategy, which requires a high degree of localresponsiveness. In contrast, the implementation ofan Infrastructural Minimalist strategy seems lessencumbered. Even though the InfrastructuralMinimalist strategy also requires some degree oflocal initiative in the design of market offeringand competitive decision-making, the level ofcorporate support in terms of branding, channelstructure, and product development is greater.Individual subsidiaries could take advantage ofsuch infrastructure to build their local marketingexpertise.

The world mandateA third type of subsidiary network is characterizedby the delegation of worldwide/regional responsi-bilities (or ‘mandate’) for entire product businessesto individual subsidiaries (Birkinshaw and Morri-son, 1995; Birkinshaw, 1996; Birkinshaw and Hood,1998). Each subsidiary has almost complete strate-gic autonomy and functional control over itsmandated business, and is not dependent on thehead office or other subsidiaries for materials andresources associated with that business. This type ofsubsidiary network is referred to as the ‘WorldMandate’ (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995), andclosely 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 subsidiariesin this type of network have extensive managementcapabilities and knowledge in at least one productbusiness, their managers are unlikely to be recep-tive to a Global Marketer strategy for the entirerange of the multinational firm’s products. Eachsubsidiary’s managers may see unique linkagesamong the various products, and hence be moti-vated to customize the market offerings for theirrespective country market. At the same time,because individual subsidiaries carry a full rangeof functional expertise but not necessarily productcategory expertise in all categories, some degree ofresource-sharing or cross-market consultation maybe desirable. Consequently, either an Infrastructur-al Minimalist or a Tactical Coordinator strategy

archetype may fit well with this subsidiary networktype, creating an equifinal situation. In the case ofan Infrastructural Minimalist strategy, countrysubsidiaries can share certain infrastructural mar-keting strategy elements (e.g., brand name andchannel structure) that do not interfere with thedevelopment of differential product mandatesacross subsidiaries. In the case of a Tactical Coor-dinator strategy, subsidiaries merely consult regu-larly with one another to coordinate their compe-titive tactics (e.g., sales promotions) without under-mining each subsidiary’s product-market authority.

In summary, the three archetypes may be differ-entially effective given different implementationcontexts, depending upon their contingent fitwithin 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 interdepen-

dence 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 sub-

sidiary 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 contextdoes not mean a complete lack of encumbrances orconstraints that may be posed to the strategy.Therefore, archetype performance may not alwaysbe optimized (as is likely with the Local Implemen-ter network situation described above). In Gresovand Drazin’s (1997) terms, this is possible because agiven context can place multiple, conflictingdemands on the organization, rendering all orga-nizational strategies suboptimal in some ways.However, when the subsidiary network context


517


facilitates the implementation of more than onestrategy archetype, equifinality is present (as islikely with the World Mandate network situationdescribed above). This is because alternative strate-gies are capable of meeting different subsets of thecontextual 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 schemey (McKelvey, 1975, 509).

This paper began with the premise that the mean-ingful characterization and classification of inter-national marketing strategies are essential tounderstanding the various strategic options that amultinational firm has in structuring its marketingapproaches across different country markets.Indeed, the field has, over the years, attained agood appreciation of the nature of internationalmarketing strategies simply by knowing how theycan differ. Beginning with Buzzell (1968), scholarshave tried to describe the international marketingstrategies of multinational firms using such cate-gory labels as ‘standardized’ vs ‘adapted’ (e.g., Jain,1989). Later scholars have also invoked the cate-gories of ‘concentrated’ vs ‘dispersed’ (e.g., Craigand Douglas, 2000) and ‘integrated’ vs ‘indepen-dent’ (e.g., Hamel and Prahalad, 1985). These labelshave given researchers, students, and practitioners

alike a useful vocabulary with which to describe thevery concept of ‘international marketing strategy’.

However, this paper also puts forth the argumentthat, in order to advance our body of knowledge,the study of international marketing strategyshould also take on a holistic, configurational viewand not be confined to a single characterization –be it standardization–adaptation, concentration–dispersion, or integration–independence – or bereliant on a single index of ‘globalness’ (e.g., Zouand Cavusgil, 2002). A configurational approachprovides tremendous utility not only in terms ofthe richness of description, but also in its capacityto guide scholarly and managerial thinking aboutthe multifaceted nature of international marketingstrategy. In adopting this approach, scholars andmanagers should consider how the various strategydimensions combine or align themselves intogestalt patterns or modal archetypes.

To substantiate our argument, we have conducteda novel case coding/clustering study to uncoverdistinct combinatorial patterns along 11 theory-based dimensions of standardization–adaptation,concentration–dispersion, and integration–inde-pendence. We found three archetypes within asample of exemplars of international marketingstrategy. While one of these archetypes (the GlobalMarketers) could well have been captured using asingle aggregate globalness score (e.g., the GMS,Zou and Cavusgil, 2002), the other two archetypes


518


Infrastructural Minimalists Tactical Coordinators

Local Implementer

Narrow geographic scope ofsubsidiary responsibilitiesLow subsidiary autonomyHigh dependence on head officeHigh interdependence among subsidiaries

World Mandate

Wide geographic and functionalscope of subsidiaryresponsibilities High subsidiary autonomy Low dependence on head officeLow interdependence among subsidiaries

Global Marketers

Specialized Contributor

Wide geographic but narrowfunctional scope of subsidiaryresponsibilitiesModerate subsidiary autonomyHigh dependence on head officeHigh interdependence among subsidiaries

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 fit for a given configuration of subsidiarynetwork 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.

were detected mainly because we have used aconfigurational procedure, which discriminatedbetween different mixed patterns of globalness.The detection of these archetypes shows thatstrategic marketing options available to multina-tional firms can be more richly described andmeaningfully compared when a holistic, multi-dimensional perspective that unifies the threeseparate characterizations is taken.

After uncovering the archetypes, a further step tosynthesize our knowledge of international businessand international strategy necessarily includes theidentification of evolutionary drivers of the respec-tive archetypes and an assessment of potentialperformance variations among the archetypes. Inour study, several archetype drivers were inducedfrom common environmental factors and marketforces within case clusters. Archetype performancepotential, on the other hand, remains a morecomplex issue involving the consideration of con-tingent fit between each archetype and the imple-mentation context. As we are focusing onmarketing strategies of multinational firms, wepropose that configurations of subsidiary networkcharacteristics represent important implementa-tion contexts. Indeed, subsidiary-level issues areincreasingly gaining attention within the interna-tional business literature (Ghoshal and Bartlett,1990; Nohria and Ghoshal, 1997; Rugman andVerbeke, 2001). More significantly, as internationalmarketing activities rely on the efforts of localsubsidiaries to occur, it is reasonable to expect thetype of subsidiary network to either facilitate orhinder the effective implementation of any giveninternational marketing strategy. In the finalanalysis, whether strategy archetypes result insuperior or equifinal performance would dependon the extent to which their implementation isunencumbered by the existing subsidiary networkcharacteristics.

The new holistic characterization of internationalmarketing strategy as archetypes and the addedunderstanding of archetype drivers and perfor-mance potential serve not only to advance thetheory of international marketing, but also toprovide a multifaceted perspective for teachingthe subject. To that end, our study has contributedthree archetypes of international marketing strat-egy that would not have been understood usingany of the traditional textbook descriptors (e.g.,‘standardized’, ‘concentrated’, ‘integrated’, etc.)alone. Yet these archetypes represent modal combi-natorial patterns found among exemplars of inter-

national marketing strategies. Pedagogically, theycan facilitate a more in-depth discussion of thedifferent types of international marketing strategy,especially when illustrated with representativeteaching cases. Furthermore, by linking them to arelevant set of evolutionary forces, and raising theissue of their contingent fit with certain subsidiarynetwork characteristics, a more insightful dialogueabout causal processes in the international market-ing arena can be encouraged.

With the above conclusions in mind, an agendafor the further study of international marketingstrategy archetypes and examination of theirdrivers and performance variations is hereby pro-posed. A crucial first step in this agenda would be tosystematically validate the archetypes by gatheringadditional evidence other than from publishedcases. This would involve the measurement ofinternational marketing strategies using a varietyof alternative sources (e.g., archival records, inter-views, surveys). In this regard, the diverse datacollection approaches of Miller and Friesen (1980),Doty et al. (1993), and Ketchen et al. (1993), amongothers, could be borrowed. Alternative proceduresfor quantifying the dimensions of internationalmarketing strategy should also be explored. Clusteranalysis, or other statistical techniques, could thenbe performed on the data to derive modal patternsof international marketing strategy. To ensurereliability, the derived archetypes should be cross-validated with results from multiple data sets aswell as from different statistical procedures.

After a robust set of archetypes has been estab-lished, the next step in the research agenda wouldbe to systematically examine the observationsgrouped under each archetype to analyze theircommon evolutionary drivers. Perhaps it is theenvironmental forces that dictate the adoption of aparticular type of strategy. Perhaps the historicaldevelopment or conventional practices of theirrespective industries have somehow favored thesame kind of strategy. Or perhaps the competitiveand social interactions among different playerswithin a network of firms have encouraged thesharing of knowledge and preferences with respectto strategy design. In Miller’s (1987) terms, different‘imperatives’ or causal forces can give rise toconfigurational archetypes. These possible under-lying causes should be thoroughly investigatedfrom multiple theoretical perspectives. In addition,methods such as comparative case studies andlongitudinal tracking of strategy profiles for a panelof firms may be utilized for empirical evaluations.


519


Finally, after archetypes have been identified andtheir antecedents understood, the performancepotential of different archetypes would be the mainsubject of interest. Direct comparisons of perfor-mance indicators across archetypes are unlikely toresult in any meaningful findings, because, asdiscussed, the relationship between internationalmarketing strategy and multinational firm perfor-mance is likely to be contingent upon the imple-mentation context. Traditional statistical testingof strategy-performance moderators involvinginteraction terms may also not be appropriatebecause of the need to consider multiple contextualcontingencies. As illustrated above, the matchingof compatible configurations of strategy andimplementation contexts from a contingent fitperspective (Miller, 1986; Doty et al., 1993) mayprove to be a more efficacious approach to under-standing archetype performance variations. Toseriously pursue the contingent fit approach, richerconfigurations of implementation contextsbased on a comprehensive set of subsidiarynetwork characteristics and other relevant variablesshould be explored from the same data set(s)used to generate the strategy archetypes. Compa-tible matched pairs of these configurationswith the respective archetypes can then be treatedas extended configurations and tested for contin-gent fit using a profile deviation methodology(Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Gresov, 1989),which analyzes the effect of deviation (measuredin Euclidean distance) from each extendedconfigurational profile. As part of this assessment,different forms of equifinality among thearchetypes (Gresov and Drazin, 1997) can also betested.

AcknowledgementsWe gratefully thank the Indiana University Center forInternational Business Education and Research (IUCIBER) for funding the empirical component of thisstudy. We also thank Professors Alan Rugman, HansThorelli, Keith Blois, Shaoming Zou, Rockney Walters,Rebecca Slotegraaf, Krishna Erramilli, and ChangsuKim for their valuable comments on earlier drafts ofthis paper. Special thanks go to JIBS DepartmentalEditor Professor G. Tomas M. Hult and the twoanonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms andguidance throughout the review process. Finally, wethank the two groups of Kelley School studentassistants whom we engaged in Spring 2004 and Fall2004 to perform the data coding.

Notes

1In Jain (1989), a brief section was devoted topointing out that the various marketing mix elements(product design, brand name, packaging, etc.) can bedifferentially standardized. Nevertheless, the authordid not discuss the potential implications of suchdifferential standardization levels. Moreover, theauthor states, ‘Conceptually, standardization of oneor more parts of the marketing program is a functionof five [antecedents]y’ (Jain, 1989, 71), implyingeither that standardization of one part of themarketing program sufficiently qualifies as a ‘standar-dization’ strategy, or that standardizations of differentparts of the marketing program are conceptuallyequivalent.

2The eight first-order dimensions were productstandardization, promotion standardization, standar-dized channel structure, standardized price, concen-tration of marketing activities, coordination ofmarketing activities, global market participation, andintegration of competitive moves.

3All scale items were developed through extensiveconsultations among the authors based on existingdefinitions of strategy dimensions in the literature(e.g., Zou and Cavusgil, 2002) and with the inputs ofcolleagues who had knowledge of internationalmarketing. It is important to note that our codingscheme scale is not comparable with a typical surveyscale. Even though each strategy dimension wascaptured by only a single scale item, the process ofcompleting each scale item on our coding scheme wasa painstaking one involving a thorough reading of acase by the coder concerned, a search for relevantpassages in the case to support the rating given, and(if necessary) a discussion with the other coder toresolve any discrepancies in each other’s ratings. Wetherefore believe a single item scale was sufficientlyreliable for each dimension.

4Admittedly, by removing the five items with highincidence of missing values, the amount of informa-tion available for cluster-analyzing international mar-keting strategies was reduced, and the weightdistributed to each broad strategy dimension wasaffected. Further, by replacing the remaining missingvalues with item means, the total variance in thedataset was reduced in unpredictable ways (we thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing thatout). Unfortunately, missing data was an inherentlimitation of our data collection method, and we hadto deal with it in the most pragmatic way. We did,however, examine the correlations between removedand retained items, and found them to be moderately


520


high and significant within each broad strategydimension (e.g., integration–independence), meaningthe retained items should have captured someinformation contained in the removed items. We didalso try to perform the cluster analysis using an equalnumber of items (specifically, two) per broad dimen-sions, selecting the ones that had greater variance andwere less correlated with other items. The clustersolution turned out to be similar to the one we report,meaning our results were reasonably robust despitethe reduction of total variance and the redistribution ofweight among the three broad strategy dimensions.

5Subtler distinctions were illuminated when the topbranch in the two-cluster solution (see dendrogram inFigure 1) was treated as two sub-branches instead. Aswe found later, those two sub-branches were asso-ciated with two (separate) mixed configurations ofstandardization, concentration, and integration strate-gies, labeled as the Infrastructural Minimalists and theTactical Coordinators, respectively. Without separatingthese sub-branches, the two clusters would have beenidentified as a single cluster of (moderately) lowratings across all dimensions.

6Because statistical testing of cluster differencesalong 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 statis-tics. The pseudo-t’s are used here for interpretivepurposes only; no statistical inferences about popula-tion parameters are made. As a rule of thumb,however, we pay attention to pseudo-t’s of greaterthan 2.0 and treat these as sizeable differences.

7Multinational firm performance is broadly definedhere as organizational effectiveness at the corporationlevel that translates into superior market and financialperformance. It is acknowledged that distinctions maybe made across multiple dimensions of firm perfor-mance (e.g., market share, profitability, growth).When disaggregated, performance may also varyconsiderably across country subsidiaries. However,we focus here on a general corporation-level perfor-mance construct and leave the finer distinctions tofuture research.

8The term ‘subsidiary’ is broadly used here to referto any unit of a multinational corporation that islocated in a country outside its home base. For thepresent purpose, no distinction is made acrossdifferent legal/equity holding statuses per se of varioussubsidiaries, except when these statuses affect thesubstantive characteristics of the subsidiary network, inwhich case the configuration of subsidiary character-istics should capture the differences.

ReferencesBartlett, 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 Studies27(3): 467–496.

Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (1998) ‘Multinational subsidiaryevolution: capability and charter change in foreign-ownedsubsidiary companies’, Academy of Management Review 23(4):773–795.

Birkinshaw, J.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1995) ‘Configurationsof strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinationalcorporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 26(4):729–753.

Boddewyn, J.J., Soehl, R. and Picard, J. (1986) ‘Standardizationin international marketing: is Ted Levitt in fact right?’ BusinessHorizons 29(6): 69–75.

Buzzell, R.D. (1968) ‘Can you standardize multinational market-ing?’ Harvard Business Review 46(6): 102–113.

Child, J. (1972) ‘Organizational structure, environmentand performance: the role of strategic choice’, Sociology6(1): 1–22.

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

Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000) ‘Configural advantage inglobal 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 MultinationalSubsidiary, Croom Helm: London, pp: 75–80.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited:institutional isomorphism and collective rationality inorganizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48(2):147–160.

Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H. and Huber, G.P. (1993) ‘Fit, equifinality,and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurationaltheories’, 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 incontingency theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4):514–539.

Elinder, E. (1961) ‘How international can European advertisingbe?’ The International Advertiser (December): 12–16.

Fatt, A.C. (1964) ‘A multinational approach to internationaladvertising’, The International Advertiser (September): 17–20.

Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1990) ‘The multinationalcorporation as an interorganizational network’, Academy ofManagement Review 15(4): 603–625.

Goodman, J.B. and Moreton, P. (1995) ‘AXA: the globalinsurance company’, Harvard Business School Case No. 9-793-094 (rev. 15 November 1995), Harvard Business SchoolPublishing: Boston, MA.

Gresov, C. (1989) ‘Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contin-gencies’, Administrative Science Quarterly 34(3): 431–453.

Gresov, C. and Drazin, R. (1997) ‘Equifinality: functionalequivalence in organization design’, Academy of ManagementReview 22(2): 403–428.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) ‘Knowledge flows andthe structure of control within multinational corporations’,Academy of Management Review 16(4): 768–792.

Hagen, J.M. (1999) ‘Ben & Jerry’s – Japan’, Richard Ivey Schoolof 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: UpperSaddle River, NJ.


521


Hambrick, D.C. (1984) ‘Taxonomic approaches to studyingstrategy: some conceptual and methodological issues’, Journalof Management 10(1): 27–41.

Hambrick, D.C. and Schecter, S.M. (1983) ‘Turnaround strate-gies for mature industrial-product business units’, Academy ofManagement Journal 26(2): 231–248.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1985) ‘Do you really have aglobal strategy?’ Harvard Business Review 63(4): 139–148.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977) ‘The population ecologyof organizations’, American Journal of Sociology 82(5):929–964.

Henzler, H. and Rall, W. (1986) ‘Facing up to the globalizationchallenge’, McKinsey Quarterly 86(1): 52–68.

Hewett, K. and Bearden, W.O. (2001) ‘Dependence, trust, andrelational behavior on the part of foreign subsidiary marketingoperations: implications for managing global marketingoperations’, Journal of Marketing 65(4): 51–66.

Hout, T., Porter, M.E. and Rudden, E. (1982) ‘How globalcompanies win out’, Harvard Business Review 60(5): 98–105.

Hovell, P.J. and Walters, P.G.P. (1972) ‘International marketingpresentations: some options’, European Journal of Marketing6(2): 69–79.

Hulbert, J.M., Brandt, W.K. and Richers, R. (1980) ‘Marketingplanning in the multinational subsidiary: practices andproblems’, Journal of Marketing 44(3): 7–15.

Jain, S.C. (1989) ‘Standardization of international marketingstrategy: some research hypotheses’, Journal of Marketing53(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 forsubsidiaries: 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) ‘Structuredcontent analysis of cases: a complementary method fororganizational research’, Academy of Management Review5(4): 517–525.

Kashani, K. and Kassarjian, J.B.M. (1998) ‘Sony Europa (A)’, IMDCase No. IMD-5-0488, Lausanne, Switzerland: InternationalInstitute for Management Development.

Keegan, W.J. (1969) ‘Multinational product planning: strategicalternatives’, 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 MarketingProblems: 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. andLamoureux, S. (1997) ‘Organizational configurations andperformance: a meta-analysis’, Academy of ManagementJournal 40(1): 223–240.

Ketchen, D.J. and Shook, C.L. (1996) ‘The application of clusteranalysis in strategic management research: an analysis andcritique’, 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 oftheoretical approaches’, Academy of Management Journal36(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 MarketEntry’, 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 SchoolPublishing: 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 SaddleRiver, NJ, pp: 324–340.

Larsson, R. (1993) ‘Case survey methodology: quantitativeanalysis 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) AnalyzingMultivariate Data, Thomson Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA.

Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The globalization of markets’, Harvard BusinessReview 61(3): 92–102.

McKelvey, B. (1975) ‘Guidelines for the empirical classificationof organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 20(4):509–525.

Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S. and Hinings, C.R. (1993) ‘Configurationalapproaches 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: thesearch for organizational gestalts’, Journal of ManagementStudies 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 ofManagement 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 Studies14(3): 251–280.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1978) ‘Archetypes of strategyformulation’, Management Science 24(9): 921–933.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1980) ‘Archetypes of organizationaltransition’, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2): 268–299.

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

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

Milligan, G.W. and Cooper, M.C. (1985) ‘An examination ofprocedures for determining the number of clusters in a dataset’, Psychometrika 50(2): 159–179.

Noble, C.H. and Mokwa, M.P. (1999) ‘Implementing marketingstrategies: 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’, HarvardBusiness Review 67(3): 152–161.

Olusoga, S.A. (1993) ‘Market concentration versus marketdiversification and internationalization: implications for MNEperformance’, International Marketing Review 10(2): 40–59.

Ozsomer, A. and Prussia, G.E. (2000) ‘Competing perspectivesin international marketing strategy: contingency and processmodels’, Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 27–50.

Porter, M.E. (1986) ‘Changing patterns of international compe-tition’, California Management Review 28(2): 9–40.

Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W. (1983) ‘Cluster analysis in marketingresearch: review and suggestions for application’, Journal ofMarketing Research 20(2): 134–148.

Quelch, J.A. and Hoff, E.J. (1986) ‘Customizing global market-ing’, Harvard Business Review 64(3): 59–68.

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

Roostal, I. (1963) ‘Standardization of advertising for WesternEurope’, Journal of Marketing 27(4): 15–20.

Roth, K. (1992) ‘International configuration and coordinationarchetypes for medium-sized firms in global industries’, Journalof International Business Studies 23(3): 533–549.


522


Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1992) ‘Implementing globalstrategy: characteristics of global subsidiary mandates’, Journalof International Business Studies 23(4): 715–735.

Roth, K., Schweiger, D.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1991) ‘Globalstrategy implementation at the business unit level: operationalcapabilities and administrative mechanisms’, Journal of Inter-national Business Studies 22(3): 369–402.

Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) ‘Subsidiary-specificadvantages 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 globalmarketing standardization on performance’, Journal of Market-ing 56(2): 1–17.

Sarle, W.S. (1983) SAS Technical Report A-108: The CubicClustering 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 theinternational marketing mix: the role of the local subsi-diary/representative’, Journal of International Marketing 8(1):78–98.

Sorenson, R.Z. and Wiechmann, U.E. (1975) ‘How multi-nationals view marketing standardization’, Harvard BusinessReview 53(3): 38–167.

Szymanski, D.M., Bharadwaj, S.G. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1993)‘Standardization versus adaptation of international marketingstrategy: an empirical investigation’, Journal of Marketing57(4): 1–17.

Theodosiou, M. and Leonidou, L.C. (2003) ‘Standardizationversus adaptation of international marketing strategy: anintegrative assessment of the empirical research’, InternationalBusiness Review 12(2): 141–171.

Vorhies, D.W. and Morgan, N.A. (2003) ‘A configuration theoryassessment of marketing organization fit with businessstrategy 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 theimplementation of business strategies: a critical review andconceptual 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 thatplague multinational marketers’, Harvard Business Review57(4): 118–124.

Wind, Y. (1986) ‘The myth of globalization’, Journal of ConsumerMarketing 3(2): 23–26.

Woo, C.Y.Y. and Cooper, A.C. (1981) ‘Strategies of effectivelow share businesses’, Strategic Management Journal 2(3):301–318.

Yip, G.S. (1989) ‘Global strategyy in a world of nations?’ SloanManagement Review 31(1): 29–41.

Zou, S. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2002) ‘The GMS: a broadconceptualization of global marketing strategy and its effecton 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 developingcountry’, International Marketing Review 14(2): 107–123.

About the authorsLewis Lim is a doctoral candidate in Marketing at theKelley School of Business, Indiana University, andSenior Tutor of Marketing and International Businessat the Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Techno-

logical University, Singapore. His research focuses onstrategy configurations and capability-building prac-tices that explain firm performance variations.

Frank Acito (PhD, SUNY Buffalo) is Professor ofMarketing and Associate Dean for Academic Pro-grams at the Kelley School of Business, IndianaUniversity. His research focuses on the assessmentand implementation of marketing research toolsand techniques and on marketing strategy. Hisresearch has appeared in the Journal of MarketingResearch, the Journal of Consumer Research, theJournal of Marketing, and other publications.

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

Appendix A: Case qualification checklist

� Is this case concerned with the marketingstrategy of a company operating in an interna-tional environment?

� Does the case feature at least one identifiablebusiness unit/level for which a single, distinct setof international marketing strategy is formulatedand executed?

� Is this case more about the featured businessunit’s overall international marketing strategythan about its marketing strategy for specificcountry markets?

� Is the case devoted more to describing thefeatured business unit’s international marketingstrategy than to analyzing a particular marketingevent or decision?

� Does the case describe, in a comprehensive anddetailed manner, the various aspects of the featuredcompany’s international marketing strategy?� Standardization–adaptation dimensions� Concentration–dispersion dimensions� Integration–independence dimensions

� Does the case writer describe the details of thecase vividly enough to enable quantification ofthe featured company’s international marketingstrategy?

� Has the strategy described in the case beenactually implemented for a reasonable period oftime (as opposed to being in the planning stageor being a transition strategy)?


523


Evaluation

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

� This case may be suitable, although a handful ofitems cannot be coded; second opinion to be sought.

� This case is definitely not suitable; drop it fromthe sample.

Appendix B: International marketing strategy case coding scheme

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


524


Development of archetypes of international marketing · PDF fileDevelopment of archetypes of...

Documents

Transcript of Development of archetypes of international marketing · PDF fileDevelopment of archetypes of...