Standardization versus customization in international marketing: An investigation using bridging conjoint analysis

We present and illustrate a methodology by which researchers can assess the relative importance and test the significance of various marketing-related factors as they influence the degree of standardization/customization of international marketing strategy. The standardization decision is viewed as a continuum with complete standardization and complete customization as the two extremes. Specific hypotheses related to the impact of marketing mix variables on the degree of standardization are formulated. These hypotheses are empirically investigated through a survey of international marketing managers. This investigation is carried out using conjoint analysis. Bridging methodology is introduced in order to accommodate the large number of variables in the study. The analysis is conducted at the individual level, at the group level, and at the aggregate level. Finally, we discuss the methodological and managerial implications of the findings and potential areas of future research.

[1]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review , 1984 .

[2]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[3]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[4]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling Hierarchical Conjoint Processes with Integrated Choice Experiments , 1994 .

[5]  N. Malhotra.  Information Load and Consumer Decision Making , 1982 .

[6]  Frank J. Carmone.  Book Review: Conjoint Designer , 1986 .

[7]  Gerald Albaum,et al.  BRIDGER, Version 1.0@@@SIMGRAF, Version 1.0 , 1989 .

[8]  Juvenal L. Angel,et al.  Directory of American firms operating in foreign countries , 1956 .

[9]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[10]  S. Jain,et al.  Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses , 1989 .

[11]  J. Boddewyn,et al.  Standardization in international marketing: Is Ted Levitt in fact right? , 1986 .

[12]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis , 1982 .

[13]  Roger J. Best,et al.  Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability , 1979 .

[14]  William L. Moore,et al.  Levels of Aggregation in Conjoint Analysis: An Empirical Comparison , 1980 .

[15]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation , 1993 .

[16]  Paul E. Green,et al.  On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives , 1974 .

[17]  William F. Messier,et al.  SOME CAUTIONARY NOTES ON THE USE OF CONJOINT MEASUREMENT FOR HUMAN JUDGMENT MODELING , 1980 .

[18]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[19]  Charles B. Weinberg,et al.  Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series , 1981 .

[20]  J. Berge,et al.  Perceptual Mapping Based on Idiosyncratic Sets of Attributes , 1994 .

[21]  Peter Wright.  Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying Vs. Optimizing , 1975 .

[22]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Marketing Management Bases for International Market Segmentation: An Alternate Look at the Standardization/Customization Debate , 1993 .

[23]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes , 1982 .

[24]  S. Addelman.  Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments , 1962 .

[25]  Jeryl Whitelock,et al.  Cross-Cultural Advertising , 1989 .